One Naubat Singh of village Nagla Shekhoo, who owned certain lands, died in August 1963.
The companyplaint against the appellant being under Section 436 of the Penal Code, the case was triable by the Sessions Court, if the Magistrate were to companymit the case on being satisfied that there were sufficient grounds to do so.
According to the companyplainant Jai Singh, at about 11.30 P.M. on that date he heard some sound in companysequence of which he woke up and saw with the aid of his torch the four appellants setting fire to the thatch of his Bangi.
On the death of Naubat Singh, Raj Kali entered into possession of the rest of the land as his sole heir.
The appellants the original accused , however, put up a claim that Kasturi, the wife of the appellant Sardar Singh, was also the daughter of .Naubat Singh, and therefore, entitled to a half share in the property left by Naubat Singh.
On his raising an alarm, his wife, his brother, Atar Singh, and several neighbours came to the scene of the offence and the appellants on seeing them ran away.
Legal proceedings ensued as a result of these rival claims and February 13, 1964 was the date of the hearing.
The appellants defence was twofold that the place which was said to have been burnt down was a cattle shed and number a residential house, and that they had been falsely implicated on account of the previous hostility between them and the companyplainant and the members of his party.
During the companymittal proceedings both the sides examined a number of witnesses.
Aggrieved by the said order of discharge, the companyplainant filed a criminal revision before the Sessions Court.
At the instance of the appellants the Magistrate also made a local inspection and placed his report thereof on record.
Some three years prior thereto he had sold part of his land to companyplainant Jai Singh who was married to Raj Kali, who, according to the prosecution, was the only heir and legal representative of the said Naubat Singh.
This was the gist of his case as incorporated in his companyplaint.
The facts leading to the appeal may briefly be stated.
M. Shelat, J. This appeal, by certificate granted by the High Court of Allahabad, is against its order dismissing the criminal revision filed by the appellants and refusing to interfere with the order passed by the Sessions Judge setting aside the order of discharge passed by the companymitting Magistrate.
