1. Heard Mr. S. P. Roy, learned counsel for the appellant and Mr. Tarun Kumar , learned A.P.P.

2. The present appeal is directed against the Judgment of conviction dated 10.04.2018 and order of sentence dated 11.04.2018, passed by the learned District & Additional Sessions Judge – II, F.T.C., Bokaro, in Sessions Trial No.49 of 2017, arising out of Chandankiyari P.S. Case No.127 of 2016 (G.R. No.1415 of 2016), whereby the appellant has been convicted for the offence under Sections 341/ 342/ 324/ 307/ 435 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and has been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for seven years with fine of Rs.10,000/- (Ten thousand) and in default of fine, further imprisonment for three months for the offence under Section 307 IPC, rigorous imprisonment for three years with fine of Rs.5,000/- (Five thousand) with default clause for the offence under Sections 324/ 435 IPC, one month imprisonment for the offence under Section 341 IPC and for the offence under Section 342 IPC he has been sentenced to undergo six months imprisonment. All the sentences were directed to run concurrently.

3. The prosecution story, in short, is based on the written application of the informant namely, Pushpa Devi, alleging therein that on 12.10.2016 at 5:00 P.M her husband, Anup Goshwami with intention to kill her, her father and her son attacked with dagger (chaku) which caused injury. She further stated that the said accused has also inflicted stab injury or her father and son. It is further alleged that the accused has also set all the injured on fire after locking them in a room. In the meanwhile, the mother of informant came there and raised alarm. Thereafter, the villagers and neighbours came there and unlocked the room and all the injured persons were saved. Due to fire, some household article valued at Rs.40,000/- to Rs.50,000/-were burnt. The reason of the occurrence is that the informant earlier filed a case for cruelty against her husband. In that case, he was remained in custody. Thereafter, on the verge of compromise she started living with the husband, but he committed the said offence.

                  On the basis of above information of the informant, Chandankiyari (Barmasia O.P) P.S Case No. 127 of 2016 corresponding to G.R No.1415/2016 has been registered under Sections 341/ 342/ 323/ 326/ 324/ 307/ 436 IPC against the accused-appellant and the police, after completing the investigation, has submitted the charge-sheet and the trial court has framed the charge under Sections 341, 342, 324, 307, 435, 436 IPC against the present appellant. Thereafter, the case has been committed to the court of Sessions to which the appellant has pleaded innocence and claimed to be tried and accordingly, the trial has commenced.

4. To substantiate the charges, the prosecution has examined altogether 07 witnesses and their depositions, in short, are as follows:-

5. P.W.-1, Sudhir Goswami, is the father of the informant and one of the injured witnesses. He has stated the prosecution story in his main examination.

                  In cross-examination, he has admitted that 40 to 50 persons have assembled at the place of occurrence, but no independent witness has come forward to support the prosecution story. He has further stated that he had gone to the police station and thereafter, he had gone to the hospital and returned from there after getting treated.

6. P.W.-2, Kumud Mahto, is an independent witness. He has stated the prosecution story in his main examination.

                  In cross-examination, he has stated that the present appellant is a good person. He has stated that the house was locked from inside and 40 to 50 persons were present at the place of occurrence. He has stated that he is not the witness to the incident.

7. P.W.-3, Pushpa Devi, is the informant and wife of the appellant. She has stated about the prosecution story and the matrimonial dispute between the parties. She has stated that she does not want divorce. She has stated that she has not sustained burn injury. She has stated that she does not know how much time has taken in getting the treatment and whether there was any stitched wound or not she remembers nothing.

                  She has admitted that after settlement of the matrimonial dispute, the appellant has come to reside in the house of the victim as a Ghar Jamai and has not brought any material.

8. P.W.-4, Meena Goswami @ Meena Bala Devi, is the mother-in-law of the appellant. She has also stated the prosecution story, but in cross-examination, she has admitted that several persons were assembled at the place of occurrence and the door of the house was locked from inside. This appellant has been caught from outside of the house. She is also not the witness to the incident.

9. P.W.-5, Aashadhi Mahto has been declared hostile.

10. P.W.-6, Ram Kumar Singh, is the Investigating Officer of the case. He has admitted that he has not seized anything from the place of occurrence, suggesting fire in the house. He has also admitted that the F.I.R has been lodged subsequently after obtaining the injury report. He has further admitted that the appellant has been arrested immediately after the incident and there are shops/ Tea stall near the house. He has also admitted that this appellant has also sustained injury.

11. P.W.-7, Dr. Sanjay Kumar, is the doctor and he has examined all the injured witnesses and all the injuries were found simple in nature. He has stated that the injury may be caused due to sharp cutting material, may be knife.

                  In cross-examination, he has admitted that there was no any burn injury and the injury may be caused from glass and bangles. He has also admitted that this appellant has also sustained injury which can be caused by the assault.

12. On consideration of above materials on record, the trial Court has found the appellant guilty for the offence under Sections 341/ 342/ 324/ 307/ 435 IPC and sentenced him, as stated above.

13. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid judgment of conviction, the appellant has preferred the present appeal.

14. Referring to the above materials available on record, it has been submitted by the learned counsel for the appellant that :-

                  (i) it was a simple dispute between the parties and no weapon has been used, rather the incident has been aggravated.

                  (ii) so far as burning of the house is concerned, the house was locked from inside and no corroborative material has been brought on record corroborating the incident of fire. Further, since the house was locked from inside, the appellant was also not around the house and further, there are shops/ Tea stalls and so many persons have assembled at the place of occurrence, which suggests that this appellant has no role in causing the fire in the house.

                  (iii) neither there is any life threatening injury nor any grievous injury has been reported by the doctor, rather the opinion of the doctor suggests that the injury may be caused by broken glass or bangles, which itself suggests that it was a simple scuffle between the family members.

                  (iv) it has been admitted by the witnesses that after settlement of the matrimonial dispute, this appellant was residing in the house as a Ghar Jamai.

                  On the strength of above materials brought on record, it has been submitted by the learned counsel for the appellant that the conviction of the appellant for the offence under Sections 307/ 324/ 435 IPC is without essential materials available on record, rather it is at best case for the offence under Section 323 IPC. So far as conviction under Sections 341/ 342 IPC is concerned, that itself gets demolished as per the evidence available on record that the house was locked from inside and not from the outside. Thus, the conviction of the appellant under these Sections is also bad in law.

15. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State has supported the judgment of conviction and order of sentence and it has been submitted that the witnesses have clearly stated regarding the intention of this appellant and there is injury also. The investigating Officer has also stated that there was sign of fire at the place of occurrence and as such the conviction of the appellant under Section 435 IPC is also justified. But, he could not point out any material so far as conviction under Section 324 IPC is concerned.

16. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and from perusal of record, it appears that :-

                  (a) the house was locked from inside and 40 to 50 persons were assembled at the place of occurrence and as per the witnesses, the door of the house was broken, but no such sign was found by the I.O., rather the I.O has reported regarding the broken window. Even, if this fact is accepted to be true, then also the house was locked from inside by the inmates and as such, the offence under Sections 341/ 342 IPC is not mode out. Accordingly, the conviction of the appellant under Sections 341/ 342 IPC is quashed and set aside.

                  (b) so far as conviction of the appellant under Section 435 IPC is concerned, although some of the witnesses have stated regarding fire, but neither any fire injury has been found upon the person of any person as per the doctor nor any material has been seized by the I.O., corroborating the oral testimony of the witnesses. Further, if the house was set on fire, there was no occasion to lock the door of the house from inside. The material brought on record, regarding the incident of fire also creates doubt, so far as putting the house on fire is concerned. Accordingly, this Court finds that the conviction of the appellant under Section 435 IPC is also bad in law and the same is, hereby, quashed and set aside.

                  (c) so far as conviction of the appellant under Sections 307/ 324 IPC is concerned, the fact emerges from the materials available on record is that :-

                  (i) it was a family dispute between the parties and scuffle has taken place between the family members, as the appellant was residing in the house as a Ghar Jamai.

                  (ii) the reported injury suggests that it is simple in nature and may be caused by broken glass or bangles and as such conviction of the appellant under Sections 307/ 324 IPC is also not sustainable, rather at best it is a case under Section 323 IPC.

                  Accordingly, the conviction of the appellant under Sections 307/ 324 IPC is, hereby, quashed and set aside.

17. The maximum punishment for the offence under Section 323 IPC is one year and it has been reported that the appellant has remained in custody for about three years and ten months and he has also deposited the fine amount, as imposed by the trial.

18. In that view of the matter, the conviction of the appellant under Sections 341/ 342/ 324/ 307/ 435 IPC are hereby, quashed and set aside and he is convicted for the offence under Section 323 IPC.

19. With above modification of the judgment of conviction, the present appeal stands disposed of.

20. The appellant is on bail, hence, he is discharged from the liability of bail bond.

21. Let the Trial Court Records be sent back to the Court concerned forthwith, along with the copy of this Judgment.