Setting Fire to House Where Only Minors Were Present is a Heinous Offence – No Quashing Merely Because Parties Settled: Calcutta High Court

"An Act of Arson in the Presence of Children Cannot Be Whitewashed by a Compromise" – In a stern reaffirmation of criminal justice principles, the Calcutta High Court has dismissed a criminal revision application filed against a conviction under Section 436 read with Section 34 IPC for setting fire to a house, ruling that grave non-compoundable offences involving public interest cannot be quashed merely because the parties have arrived at a settlement.

The petitioners had sought quashing of their conviction on the basis of a compromise with the complainant. However, the Court categorically rejected the plea: "Offences under Sections 436/34 IPC are grave and heinous. Setting fire to a house in which only minors were present is a heinous crime. By no stretch of imagination can this type of case be quashed on the basis of compromise."

Minor Eyewitnesses’ Evidence is Natural, Trustworthy, and Unshaken – Conviction Does Not Suffer from Any Legal Infirmity

Three sisters—PWs 1, 4 and 5, all minors at the time of the incident—had provided consistent and detailed accounts of the offence. They testified that on April 7, 1993, the petitioners and others forcibly entered their home, damaged property, poured kerosene, and set the house on fire. The testimony of these minor eyewitnesses was the backbone of the prosecution case.

Despite defence claims of tutoring and unreliability, the Court upheld their evidentiary value: “Even an ocular witness is sufficient for conviction if the evidence is reliable and trustworthy… Child witnesses cannot be discarded merely because of their age when their depositions are natural, consistent, and free from contradictions.”

Relying on Dattu Ramrao Sakhare v. State of Maharashtra, the Court reiterated that the evidence of a child witness is acceptable if it inspires confidence and is free from tutoring. In this case, the minors’ identification of the accused in the court dock was held valid, as the witnesses already knew the accused, making a Test Identification Parade (TIP) unnecessary.

“Non-examination of Investigating Officer is Not Fatal When Prosecution Case is Built on Clear Ocular Evidence”

The petitioners had argued that the non-examination of the Investigating Officer (IO) and lack of scientific evidence such as fire reports, forensic analysis, or seizure of burnt items made the prosecution case weak. But the Court ruled otherwise.

“Defective investigation or non-examination of the IO is not fatal when there is trustworthy eyewitness testimony.”

The Court cited the ruling in C. Muniappan v. State of Tamil Nadu, reaffirming that procedural lapses in investigation do not vitiate a case supported by credible, consistent direct evidence.

Quashing Denied: Section 436 IPC is a Grave Offence Against Society, Not Just a Private Dispute

The most critical issue before the Court was the petitioners’ prayer to quash the conviction on the ground of a settlement with the complainant under the inherent powers of Section 482 CrPC. However, the Court categorically held that: "Such offences are non-compoundable, and quashing based on compromise is impermissible when the acts alleged are heinous and affect public interest."

The Court emphasized that while the judiciary can exercise discretion in exceptional cases, crimes like arson—particularly when committed in a manner that endangers children—are offences against society, and allowing them to be settled privately would undermine public confidence in the justice system.

Concurrent Convictions Upheld – No Illegality or Infirmity Found

The High Court noted that both the Trial Court and the First Appellate Court had correctly appreciated the evidence and law. It found no perversity or miscarriage of justice warranting interference under Section 401 CrPC.

“This Court does not find any error, illegality, or impropriety in the findings of the learned Trial Court as well as the Learned Appellate Court. The judgments of both courts below call for no interference.”

The revision application was therefore dismissed, and the petitioners were directed to surrender before the Trial Court to serve the remaining portion of their sentence. However, they were granted the benefit of set-off under Section 428 CrPC for the period already spent in custody during investigation and trial.

Arson in Presence of Children, Long-Drawn Litigation

The case dates back to 1993, when Lakshmi Sarkar, the complainant, and her two younger sisters were allegedly attacked in their home by the petitioners and others following a land dispute with their father. The attackers reportedly entered the house, damaged property, and set it on fire while the girls were alone. A case was registered at Balagarh P.S., leading to a charge sheet and trial.

In 2000, the Assistant Sessions Judge, Hooghly convicted the petitioners under Sections 436/34, 143, and 447 IPC, sentencing them to four years of rigorous imprisonment and a fine. The conviction was upheld in 2001 by the Sessions Court, Hooghly. The present revision was pending since then.

One of the petitioners, Bhim Biswas, died during the pendency of the petition, and proceedings against him abated.

Criminal Justice Cannot Be Trumped by Private Settlements in Serious Offences

In conclusion, the Calcutta High Court firmly rejected the notion that cordial relations between families or passage of time could dilute the gravity of serious criminal acts like setting a house on fire in the presence of minors.

“By no stretch of imagination can this type of case be quashed on the basis of compromise… Offences under Section 436 IPC are grave and heinous.”

This judgment reaffirms the judiciary’s role as guardian of public interest, ensuring that serious criminality does not escape accountability due to private settlements.

Date of Decision: 10 December 2025