IMPORTANT POINT
The judgment underscores the importance of direct eyewitness testimony in establishing guilt in criminal cases involving intent to cause harm.

JUDGMENT :

Pankaj Purohit, J.

This appeal is preferred by the appellants under Section 374 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as “the Cr.P.C.”) assailing the judgment and order dated 18.04.2007 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge/3rd Fast Track Court, Haridwar in Sessions Trial No.329 of 1999, State vs. Surendra & another, whereby the said court has held the appellants guilty for the offence punishable under Sections 436, 304/34 & 429 IPC and sentenced each of them as follows:-

All the aforesaid sentences were directed to run concurrently.

2. During the pendency of appeal, appellant no.2-Amar Singh has passed away on 22.09.2016. Hence, the present appeal stood abated against appellant no.2-Amar Singh. Now, the Court shall proceed to hear the appeal qua appellant no.1-Surendra.

3. The facts in nutshell are that PW1-Ram Singh lodged a report on 18.12.1998 at 08:45 a.m. after getting the same scribed from one Om Prakash at Police Station Laksar with the averments that in the intervening night of 17/18.12.1998 he along with his children was sleeping in the house while his cattle were tied in the shed meant for that purpose. At about 02:00 of the night, when he woke up, he saw the fire in the cowshed. On hearing the noise, he came towards the shed and saw that the appellants-Surendra and Amar Singh were running from the spot. On hearing the noise, several people from vicinity and his children reached on the spot who also saw the appellants running. After extinguishing the fire, in the light of shed some articles exploded due to which his grand-daughter-Amita and one calf sustained injuries and died on the spot, whereas people of vicinity, namely, Bijendra, Yashpal, Kripal, his wife-Sumeri (of informant) and grandson got injured. With these averments, the case was registered against the accused persons under Section 436 IPC.

4. On completion of investigation, a charge-sheet was submitted against the accused persons. The charge was framed against the accused persons. The accused persons denied the charges and claimed to be tried. The prosecution produced as many as 13 witnesses to prove its case. Thereafter, the statements of accused perons were recorded under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. The trial court vide impugned judgment and order has convicted and sentenced the accused-appellants, as mentioned in para 1 of this judgment.

5. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties extensively and carefully gone through the entire material available on record.

6. The case against the accused persons is that in the intervening night of 17/18.12.1998 at about 02:00 a.m. the accused persons set on fire the cow-shed of the informant with intention to commit mischief by fire, due to explosion of certain article burnt in the shed, grand-daughter of informant sustained injuries due to which she died on the spot and the calf of buffalo of informant was also died during the said incident.

7. PW1-Ram Singh, informant is the eye-witness of the case. On his examination he stated that the incident happened at 2 A.M. on 17/18-12-98. While he was sleeping in the room, he stated that just in front of his room there is a cattle shed. He stated that he was half awake and saw fire coming out from the cattle shed. He raised hue and cry and ran t