In acquittal appeals, the appellate court must uphold the presumption of innocence and only interfere if the trial court's decision lacks a reasonable basis and is perverse.

JUDGMENT :

S.V. PINTO, J.

1. This appeal has been filed by the appellant- State under Section 378(1)(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 against the judgement and order of acquittal passed by learned Sessions Judge, Bhavnagar (hereinafter referred to as "the learned Trial Court") in Sessions Case No. 189 of 2007 on 23.05.2011, whereby, the learned Trial Court has acquitted the respondents for the offence punishable under Sections 452 , 306, 504, 506(2) and 114 of the INDIAN PENAL CODE , 1860 and Section 135 of the BOMBAY POLICE ACT .

1.1 The respondents are hereinafter referred to as “the accused” as they stood in the original case for the sake of convenience, clarity and brevity.

2. The brief facts that emerge from the record of the case are as under:

2.1] On 30.05.2005, the complainant, Ashwinbhai Balabhai Solanki and his younger brother Ravi were at home and his parents and elder brother Raju and younger sister Poonam had gone out. At around 12.30 hours, the accused came armed with a stick, which was in the hands of the accused No. 1 and came into their house and asked them where their brother Raju was. The accused threatened them and told them to vacate the house and go away or they would kill them and as the complainant Ashwinbhai Balabhai Solanki saw them he took a can of kerosene which was lying in his house and sprinkled it on his body and set himself ablaze with a matchbox, which was in his house. As he started burning and shouting, all the four accused ran away and his neighbour Kanabhai Govindbhai came and put a jute sack on him and

put out the fire. That he jumped into the water tank which was at his house and he was grvievously burnt on his chest, stomach, back and his hands and thereafter his brother Ravi and neighbor Kanabhai Govindbhai put him in a rickshaw and brought him to the Government Hospital Bhavnagar, where, he filed the complaint which was registered at Bhavnagar City “D” Division Police Station I-C.R.No. 93 of 2005 under Sections 452 , 504, 506 (2) and 114 of the IPC and Section 135 of the BOMBAY POLICE ACT . The complainant Ashwinbhai Balabhai Solanki expired during treatment and Section 306 was added in the FIR.

2.2] The Investigating Officer recorded the statements of the connected witnesses and collected the necessary documents and after completion of investigation the police filed the chargesheet against the accused before the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bhavnagar and as the said offences against the accused were exclusively triable by the Court of Sessions, the case was committed to the Sessions Court, Bhavnagar as per the provisions of Section 209 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and the case was registered Sessions Case No. 189 of 2007.

2.3] The accused were duly served with the summons and the accused appeared before the learned Trial Court, and it was verified whether the copies of all the police papers were provided to the accused as per the provisions of Section 207 of the Code. A charge at Exh. 7 was framed against the accused and the statements of the accused were recorded at Exhs. 8 and 11, wherein, the accused denied all the contents of the charge and the entire evidence of the prosecution was taken on record.

2.4] The prosecution produced ten oral evidences and twenty two documentary evidences to bring home the charge against the accused and after the learned Additional Public Prosecutor filed the closing pursis, the further statement of the accused under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 were recorded, wherein, the accused denied all the evidence of the prosecution on record. The accused refused to step into the witness box or examine witnesses on their behalf and stated that a false case has been filed against them. After the