The acquittal was upheld due to unreliable witness testimony and lack of strong evidence against the accused, highlighting the burden of proof on the prosecution.

JUDGMENT :

CHEEKATI MANAVENDRANATH ROY, J.

1. This appeal is preferred against the judgment dated 31.05.2013 passed in Sessions Case No.116 of 2011 on the file of the learned Second Additional Sessions Judge, Anand whereby the respondent nos.1 to 4, who were A-1 to A-4 in the said case were acquitted of the charges levelled against them.

2. Briefly stated, it is the case of the prosecution that A-2 to A-4 are the sons of A-1 and P.W.-2 is the son of P.W.-1 and they are related to each other. Both the families got a dispute relating to a passage which is nearby their fields. When P.W.-2 was passing through the said passage, A-1 questioned him as to why he was passing through their passage. Therefore, there was enmity between both the families relating to the dispute pertaining to the said passage.

3. While so, it is stated that on 28.11.2005 at about 9:30 am when P.W.-1 and her son P.W.-2 were in their house, A-1 to A-4, armed with sticks, came and trespassed into their house and thereafter, while quarreling with P.W.-1, A-1 picked up a kerosene can which is available in the said house and handed over the same to A-3 and A-3 sprinkled the said kerosene all over the house and thereafter A-2 has set fire to the furniture and other articles in the house with the matchstick and while the house was engulfed in fire, that A-1 to A-4 also attacked P.W.-2 with sticks and beat him and thereafter A-1 to A-4 came out of the house. P.W.s- 4 to 6, who are the residents of that locality have witnessed A-1 to A-4 coming out of the said house. It is stated that some articles in the house were burnt in the house, but the house was intact.

4. Thereafter, P.W.-1 lodged a report with the police at about 11:45 am on the same day. The said report was registered as a case for the offences punishable under Sections 436, 435, 427, 452, 336, 323, 504, 506(2) and Section 114 of IPC. The case was investigated. The forensic expert visited the scene of offence and examined the same and he has collected some burnt material and after examining the said burnt material, he opined that kerosene smell is emanating from the said burnt material. A report was given by him to that effect. During the course of investigation, police have observed the scene of offence in the presence of panch witness. Thereafter, on the next day i.e., on 29.11.2005, police have arrested A-2 to A-4 and they have arrested A-1 on 06.12.2005. On the disclosure statement said to have been given by A-2 and A-3, it is stated that they have produced the sticks used by them and the sticks were recovered and seized by the police in the presence of the mediator, who is examined as P.W.-10. After completion of the investigation, eventually, the police have filed chargesheet against the accused for the aforesaid offences.

5. After the accused made their appearance in the trial Court, the trial Court has framed the charges punishable under Sections 436, 435, 427, 452, 336, 323, 504, 506(2) and Section 114 of IPC. They were read over and explained to the accused. They denied the said charges and claimed to be tried.

6. During the course of the trial, the prosecution got examined P.W.s 1 to 16 witnesses and got marked 17 documents to substantiate its case against the accused.

7. At the conclusion of the trial, after considering the evidence on record and on appreciation of the same, the trial Court found the accused not guilty for the charges levelled against them and thereby acquitted all the accused for the aforesaid charges.

8. Aggrieved by the impugned judgment of acquittal, the State has preferred the instant appeal assailing the legality