The prosecution must prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt, and failure to comply with procedural requirements, such as questioning under Section 313, can undermine a conviction.

ORAL JUDGMENT

Date : 20-12-2025 At the outset, it is submitted that appellant no(s). 1, 4, 5 and 6 namely, Brij Kumar Pandey, Hansnath Pandey, Nandjee Pandey and Paramhansh Pandey died during the pendency of present appeal. Accordingly, present appeal stands abated against them.

2. In view of aforesaid, now this appeal survives against appellant no(s). 2 and 3.

3. The present appeal has been preferred by the appellants-convicts under Section-374(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Code’) challenging the impugned judgment of conviction dated 24.11.2005 and order of sentence dated 26.11.2005 passed by learned Additional District and Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court No. V), Gopalganj in Sessions Trial No. 22 of 1995/151 of 2004, whereby the concerned Trial Court has convicted the appellants under Section 436 /34 of the Indian Penal Code (for short ‘IPC’) and have been sentenced to undergo R.I. for seven years and fine of Rs. 1,000/- each and in default of payment of fine each shall undergo SI for six months.

4. The brief facts of the prosecution case is that on evening of 06.04.1993 informant had gone to attend the nature’s call towards north of his house and when he was returning back to his house at about 19:00 hours he saw accused Brij Kumar Pandey, Sheo Kumar Pandey and Rohit Kumar Pandey were sprinkling petrol over the roof of his house and accused Rohit Kumar Pandey set fire with match stick. The other accused persons namely Hansnath Pandey, Param Hans pandey and Nand Ji Pandey were also armed with bhala and farsa standing near the road. On alarm of informant several villagers arrived at the place of the occurrence whereafter accused persons fled away. Villagers, who arrived at the place of occurrence tried to extinguish the fire, but they did not succeed and therefore property worth Rs. 1,25,000/- was destroyed. The reason behind the setting fire alleged to be land dispute between the parties.

5. On the basis of informant’s fardbeyan a case was registered as Kuchaikot P.S. Case No. 36 of 1993 for aforesaid occurrence against all above named six accused persons for the offence punishable under Sections 436 /34 of the Indian Penal Code .

6. Learned Judicial Magistrate, 1^st Class, Gopalganj on the basis of materials collected during investigation took cognizance under Section 436 of the IPC and committed this case to the court of Sessions for its trial and disposal. Learned trial court accordingly framed charges against appellants-accused, which upon explanation to accused/appellants, pleaded as “not guilty” and claimed trial.

7. To substantiate its case, before learned Trial Court the prosecution has examined altogether 5 witnesses. One defence witness was also examined in defence. They are:-

defence witness was also examined in defence. They are:-

defence witness was also examined in defence. They are:-

defence witness was also examined in defence. They are:-

defence witness was also examined in defence. They are:-

defence witness was also examined in defence. They are:-

defence witness was also examined in defence. They are:-

defence witness was also examined in defence. They are:-

defence witness was also examined in defence. They are:-

8. Apart from the oral evidence, the prosecution has also proved the following documents in order to prove the charges and certain documents in defence also:-

9. The statement of the appellants-accused were recorded under Section 313 of the Code after stating them incriminating evidences/circumstances as surfaced during the trial, which they denied and shows their complete innocence.

10. Taking note of the evidence as surfaced during the trial and the arguments as advanced by the parties, the learned Trial Court has convicted ap