The prosecution must establish motive for the commission of a crime beyond a reasonable doubt to secure a conviction.

ORDER :

N. Santosh Hegde, J.

The State of Himachal Pradesh is in appeal against the judgment of the High Court of Himachal Pradesh at Shimla whereby the High Court acquitted the respondent herein of the charges framed against him by allowing his appeal.

2. The Sessions Judge, Hamirpur had convicted the respondent for the offences punishable under Sections 436 and 477-A of the Penal Code, 1860 for which he was awarded a sentence of three years' rigorous imprisonment and two years' rigorous imprisonment respectively and a fine of Rs. 3000 on each of the said counts.

3. The prosecution case when stated briefly is that with a view to destroy the evidence that may be used against the respondent in a pending departmental inquiry the respondent in the night of 5-7-1990 set on fire his office causing damage to the office building and the documents therein. The trial court came to the conclusion that the prosecution has proved its case and convicted the appellant as stated above while the High Court differed from the trial court holding that the prosecution has not established its case as against the respondent, hence allowed the appeal and acquitted the respondent. The State of Himachal Pradesh as stated hereinabove is in appeal before us.

4. Learned counsel appearing for the State of Himachal Pradesh contended that the prosecution has relied upon the following circumstances to establish its case against the respondent; they are: (1) the respondent had necessary motive to set fire to the office and no other person had any such motive; (2) PW 9, a guest residing with the respondent, had seen the respondent purchasing a bottle of kerosene oil on 4-7-1990 and bringing it home; (3) the said PW 9 had seen the respondent carrying the bottle away from the house on 5-7-1990; after some time on 5-7-1990, PW 9 saw the respondent bringing an empty bottle and throwing it in the verandah of the house; (4) PW 9 also saw a window of the office open, that is, when the fire was noticed in the office; (5) the peon, chowkidar and other officials participated in the effort of putting off the fire while the respondent did not do so even though he was present at that place; (6) when PW 4 tried to put off the fire from a particular document the respondent persuaded him not to put off the fire; (7) the respondent made an extra-judicial confession to PW 9 that he embezzled a sum of Rs. 18,000 and stated that now because of the fire has become a free man.

5. The trial court did not believe the evidence of PW 9 but came to the conclusion from the evidence of PWs 11 and 12 that the respondent had sufficient motive to destroy the document that contained the material against the respondent. It also drew an adverse inference from the fact that the respondent did not cooperate with the others in putting off the fire and accepted the conversation which the respondent had with PW 4 in regard to the burning of the document in question. On the said basis as stated above the respondent was found guilty and convicted.

6. The High Court in appeal came to the conclusion that the prosecution has failed to establish the motive alleged against the respondent. It referred to the evidence of PWs 11 and 12 who were examined to speak about the motive and came to the conclusion that the same was insufficient to come to the finding as to the motive entertained by the appellant, more so when admittedly the documents which were available to prove the guilt had not been produced before the court. It also came to the conclusion that the evidence of PW 4 that the respondent tried to persuade him from putting off the fire is not safe to be relied upon without any corroboration more so because of the fact that other witnesses who were admittedly nearby did not hear such conversation between PW 4 and the respondent.

7. Learned counsel appearing for the State has urged before us that in spite of the fact that the evidence of PW 9 is not relied upon by the courts below, the trial court was justified