The central legal point established in the judgment is the necessity of material evidence, careful scrutiny of witness testimony, and corroboration from independent evidence in cases of mischief by fire.

JUDGMENT :

1. This criminal revision has been preferred against the judgment and order of conviction and sentencing dated 29.10.1992 passed by the Assistant Sessions Judge-IV, Agra in Sessions Trial No.166 of 1992 (State Vs. Rakesh and others), under Sections 149, 436, 427, 452 IPC as well as the judgment and order dated 27.03.1993 passed by Additional Sessions Judge-IV, Agra in Criminal Appeal No.61 of 1992 (Rakesh and others Vs. State of UP). The trial Judge convicted and sentenced all the accused persons under Section 436 read with Section 149 IPC and sentenced to undergo three and half years rigorous imprisonment each, under Section 452 read with Section 149 IPC for six months rigorous imprisonment each, under Section 427 read with Section 149 IPC they were directed to undergo three months rigorous imprisonment each. It was also directed that all the sentences shall run concurrently.

2. The appeal was partly allowed with regard to accused Veeru and the conviction and sentencing under Section 452 read with Section 149 IPC was also quashed.

3. Being aggrieved by both the order the convicted accused persons have preferred this revision. During the pendency of this revision, accused-revisionist no.6, Kalua had died and this revision in respect of revisionist no.6 has been abated and the same survives in respect of revisionist nos.1 to 5.

4. The revisionists have taken ground that in this case investigating officer (IO) has not been examined, recovery memo is not proved, no independent witness has been examined, the disputed land was a nazul land and the temporary hut installed by the informant was already removed by the Nazul Department/Nagar Maha Palika, site plan has not been proved. Section 436 IPC is not made out as the alleged occurrence is said to have been committed in a hut. Witnesses are highly partitioned witnesses and their statement cannot be relied on and more so their statements are also self-contradictory. PW-2, Banshi husband of the informant is said to have reached on the spot just after the incident. He was a chance witness. Presence of the alleged witnesses is not established. One of the accused Veeru has been exonerated. Hence, the revision be allowed and the impugned judgments and orders of conviction and sentencing passed by the trial court and the appellate court as well be set aside.

5. In brief, facts of the case are that when the informant Smt. Vidyawati was present in her hut situated in Village Jaganpur on 17.04.1988 at about 08:30 a.m. and her husband had gone out of the house, accused Rakesh, Ravi, Veeru, Naubat, Harvir, Kalloo and Kalua alongwith 10-12 persons came at her jhopadi (hut) and directed to vacate the same. She was tying cattle therein. The accused intended to pass through the land of the hut. All the accused persons set the hut on fire which reduced to ashes and her utensils and cash etc. were burnt. Her cattle were united and led to run. The occurrence was witnessed by Natthi, Rajni and some others. There was a loss of Rs.4,000/-. Present FIR was lodged at Police Station New Agra on 17.04.1988 at 10:30 a.m. The Assistant Sessions Judge after recording and appreciating the evidence found all the accused persons guilty and convicted and sentenced them accordingly.

6. The order of the trial court was challenged in the aforementioned criminal appeal which was partly allowed as mentioned above. Being aggrieved this revision has been preferred by the convicts.

7. In this case some witnesses i.e. PW-1, Vidyawati, informant; PW-2, Banshi -husband of the informant; PW-3, Rajni -daughter of the informant; PW-4, Head Constable, Desh Raj Khanna -secondary evidence have been examined.

8. PW-1, Smt. Vidyawati -informant has deposed that on the date and time of occurrence accused persons wanted to vacate the hut when she did not vacate, they set the hut on fire due to which Rs.2,000/-, 17 k.g. grains, 30 k.g. bran (chuni) were burnt. She had lodged FIR. She recognized her thumb impression on the written co