The prosecution must prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt; lack of reliable evidence and delay in lodging the FIR resulted in acquittal.

JUDGMENT :

CHEEKATI MANAVENDRANATH ROY, J.

1. This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 10.07.2013 rendered in Sessions Case No. 12 of 2011 on the file of the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Dahod, whereby, the respondent Nos. 1 to 5, who are accused Nos. 1 to 5 in the said case, were acquitted of the charges for the offence punishable under Sections 436 , 506(2), 147 and 148 of the INDIAN PENAL CODE , 1860 (IPC).

2. Fact germane to dispose of this appeal may briefly be stated as follow:

2.1 The complainant by name Manishaben Mahendrasinh Chauhan is the resident of Dabhwa Faliya, presently residing at: Dogawada, Taluka: Devgadh Bariya. Mahendrasinh is her husband. It is stated that on 12.12.2009 at about 8:30 p.m. in the night time, PW-3 who is the sister-in-law of the complainant, who is examined as PW-1, came to the house of PW-1 and informed her that her husband, while driving a Jeep, dashed against the son and the son-in-law of Accuse No. 1 (A-1) and that, they died in the said accident and A-1 got enraged and that, he is coming with A-2 to A-5 towards her house. At that time, it is stated that, PW-1, who is the complainant and her brother-in-law who is examined as PW-2 and her sister-in-law who is examined as PW-3, have seen A-1 to A-5 coming towards their house while they were inside the house. It is stated that A-1 was carrying a Dhariya (Scythe), A-2 and A-3 were carrying sticks and A-4 and A-5 were holding two kerosene tins with them and that, they all came to her house and set fire to her brick and wooden house and her house was gutted in fire. Immediately, PW-1 to PW-3 came out of the house from the backdoor and they escaped and ran away from that place.

2.2 Thereafter, on 08.05.2010, almost after five months, PW-1 lodged a report with the police relating to the said incident. The police registered the said report as a case for the offences punishable under Sections 436 , 506(2), 147 and 148 of the IPC. The case was investigated. The expert of Forensic Science Laboratory (FSL) visited the scene of offence on the requisition made by the police. He has observed the scene of offence. He found nothing incriminating like kerosene tins or any material to show that the house was set fire with kerosene. The scene of offence was observed by the police in the presence of PW-4 and PW-5, mediators and scene of offence observation report was prepared.

2.3 After completion of investigation, police filed the Charge- sheet against the accused for the offences punishable under Sections 436 , 506(2), 147 and 148 of the IPC.

2.4 The trial Court framed the charges for the offences punishable under Sections 436 , 506(2), 147 and 148 of the IPC against the accused. The accused denied the said charges and claimed to be tried.

2.5 During the course of trial, the prosecution got examined PW-1 to PW-12 witnesses and got marked five exhibits to substantiate its case against the accused.

2.6 At the end of the trial, on appreciation of the evidence on record, the trial Court found the accused not guilty of any of the charges levelled against them and acquitted them of all the charges by the impugned judgment.

2.7 Therefore, aggrieved by the said judgment of acquittal, the State has preferred the present appeal against the respondents assailing the legality and validity of the impugned judgment of acquittal.

3. When the appeal came up for hearing, we have heard Ms. Krina Calla, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the appellant – State and Ms. Heta Panchal, learned counsel for the respondents – accused.

3.1 The genesis of the offence appears to be the alleged accident said to have been caused by the husband of PW-1 while driving the Jeep resulting into the death of the son and the son-in-law of A-1. So, it is stated that A-1, out of infuriation, bore grudge against the husband of PW-1 and