1960 (4) TMI 100 - HC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Criminal conspiracy
2. Arson
3. Abetment of arson
4. Use of petroleum in the arson
5. Reliability of the approver's evidence
6. Motive for the crime
7. Participation of the accused

Detailed Analysis:

1. Criminal Conspiracy:
The respondents were charged with criminal conspiracy under Section 120B of the Indian Penal Code. The court found that the charge of criminal conspiracy was irrelevant because the offence of arson, which was the object of the conspiracy, was actually committed. The court cited the principle that when an offence is committed in pursuance of a conspiracy, the conspiracy amounts to abetment under Section 107 of the Indian Penal Code. This view was supported by previous judgments, including those from the Patna High Court and the Madras High Court.

2. Arson:
The court determined that the occurrence was an act of deliberate arson with the intent to defraud the insurance companies. The defence's version that the arson was an act of revenge by disgruntled workmen was rejected. The court found that the arson was committed by Bhagwati Ram with the help of Shivaram, Nagendra, and others. However, there was no legal evidence to show that the respondents were parties to the conspiracy or were connected with the crime.

3. Abetment of Arson:
The court examined whether the respondents had abetted the commission of the offence. It was found that the evidence did not support the prosecution's case that the respondents participated in or abetted the crime. The court scrutinized the involvement of each respondent individually and concluded that the prosecution failed to prove their participation or abetment beyond a reasonable doubt.

4. Use of Petroleum in the Arson:
The prosecution argued that petroleum was used to promote the fire. The court initially found this claim unconvincing due to the lack of corroboration and the improbability of the approver's story. However, upon reviewing the evidence, including the testimony of the Investigating Officer and the Explosives expert, the court concluded that the fire and explosion were indeed caused by petroleum. The expert's opinion was supported by authoritative sources, which explained the behavior of petroleum in causing fires and explosions.

5. Reliability of the Approver's Evidence:
The court applied the double test for evaluating the approver's evidence: the reliability of the witness and the need for corroboration. The approver, Udami Maharaj, was found to be a reliable witness despite his low status and alleged mercenary nature. His evidence regarding the manner of occurrence was corroborated by independent sources, including the immediate aftermath of the explosion and the physical evidence found at the scene.

6. Motive for the Crime:
The court examined the financial condition of the Mill and found that there was a reasonable motive for the crime. The Mill was not in a flourishing condition, and the destruction of goods to claim insurance money would have been profitable. The court rejected the defence's argument that the Mill was financially sound and that the arson was an act of revenge by retrenched workers.

7. Participation of the Accused:
The court reviewed the evidence against each respondent individually:

- Srilal: The court found that the prosecution failed to prove Srilal's participation or abetment in the crime.
- Mahadeo Lal Santhalia: The court held that his participation in the crime was not proved beyond doubt.
- Jagdish Pandey: The court agreed with the lower court's finding that he was not guilty.
- Bhola Mander: The prosecution conceded that there was no evidence of his participation in the crime.

Conclusion:
The appeal was dismissed, and the respondents were acquitted. The court found that the charges had not been brought home to the respondents, and they were rightly acquitted by the learned Assistant Sessions Judge.