High Court, As A Constitutional Court Of Record, Possesses The Inherent Power To Correct Its Own Record: Bombay High Court High Court of Uttarakhand Acquits Defendants in High-Profile Murder Case, Cites Lack of Evidence In Cases of Financial Distress, Imposing A Mandatory Deposit Under Negotiable Instruments Act May Jeopardize Appellant’s Right To Appeal: Rajasthan High Court Patna High Court Acquits Accused, Questions “Capacity of Victim to Make Coherent Statement” with 100% Burn Injuries High Court of Himachal Pradesh Dismisses Bail Plea in ₹200 Crore Scholarship Scam: Rajdeep Singh Case Execution of Conveyance Ends Arbitration Clause; Appeal for Arbitration Rejected: Bombay High Court Allahabad High Court Denies Tax Refund for Hybrid Vehicle Purchased Before Electric Vehicle Exemption Policy Entering A Room with Someone Cannot, By Any Stretch Of Imagination, Be Considered Consent For Sexual Intercourse: Bombay High Court No Specific Format Needed for Dying Declaration, Focus on Mental State and Voluntariness: Calcutta High Court Delhi High Court Allows Direct Appeal Under DVAT Act Without Tribunal Reference for Pre-2005 Tax Periods NDPS | Mere Registration of Cases Does Not Override Presumption of Innocence: Himachal Pradesh High Court No Previous Antecedents and No Communal Tension: High Court Grants Bail in Caste-Based Abuse Case Detention of Petitioner Would Amount to Pre-Trial Punishment: Karnataka High Court Grants Bail in Dowry Harassment Case Loss of Confidence Must Be Objectively Proven to Deny Reinstatement: Kerala High Court Reinstates Workman After Flawed Domestic Enquiry Procedural lapses should not deny justice: Andhra High Court Enhances Compensation in Motor Accident Case Canteen Subsidy Constitutes Part of Dearness Allowance Under EPF Act: Gujarat High Court Concurrent Findings Demonstrate Credibility – Jharkhand High Court Affirms Conviction in Cheating Case 125 Cr.P.C | Financial responsibility towards dependents cannot be shirked due to personal obligations: Punjab and Haryana High Court Mere Acceptance of Money Without Proof of Demand is Not Sufficient to Establish Corruption Charges Gujrat High Court Evidence Insufficient to Support Claims: Orissa High Court Affirms Appellate Court’s Reversal in Wrongful Confinement and Defamation Case Harmonious Interpretation of PWDV Act and Senior Citizens Act is Crucial: Kerala High Court in Domestic Violence Case

Setting Fire to Temporary Structure Does Not Attract Section 436 IPC: Calcutta High Court Modifies Conviction to Lesser Charge

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


In a notable judgment rendered by the Hon’ble Justice Shampa Dutt (Paul) of the Calcutta High Court, the appellant Haradhan Malik, previously convicted under Section 436 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) for setting fire to a tea stall, saw his conviction altered. The court held, “The essential ingredients of Section 436 IPC not met when the property is not a ‘building’ used for specified purposes.” Consequently, his conviction was modified to Section 435 IPC, which deals with mischief by fire with the intent to cause damage.

The pivotal legal discussion centered around the interpretation of Sections 435 and 436 of the IPC. Initially, the appellant was charged under Section 436 IPC, which pertains to mischief by fire intended to destroy a building used for residence, worship, or custody of property. However, upon appeal, it was contended that the property in question was a temporary thatched tea stall, not fitting the stringent definitions under Section 436.

The appellant was accused of setting fire to the complainant’s tea stall under a bridge on June 4, 2015. The prosecution aimed to establish that Malik acted with intent to damage by setting the stall ablaze due to a personal vendetta, alleging the sale of illicit liquor at the stall. The case pivoted on whether the structure qualified as a ‘building’ under Section 436 or if the lesser charge under Section 435 was more appropriate given the temporary nature of the stall.

Nature of Structure: Justice Dutt noted, “The structure in question, being temporary and primarily made of bamboo and hay, does not constitute a ‘building’ as required under Section 436 IPC.”

Applicability of Charges: The judgment clarified that while the appellant did commit mischief by fire, the intent required for Section 436 was not established as the property was not used for the purposes specified in the said section.

Legal Interpretation and Precedents: Citing several precedents, the court underscored the flexibility within IPC and the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC) to adjust charges based on the material facts presented during the trial.

The court set aside the conviction under Section 436 IPC and instead convicted Malik under Section 435 IPC. He was sentenced to the time already served and fined Rs. 10,000. The fine, if collected, was directed to be paid to the victim as compensation. This decision aimed to align the punishment more closely with the nature of the offense and the damage caused.

Date of Decision: 13 May 2024

Haradhan Malik @ Hari vs The State of West Bengal

Similar News