The admissibility of an extrajudicial confession requires corroboration and reliability, and statements recorded under Section 161 of the Cr.P.C. are not substantive evidence.

JUDGMENT

Parthivjyoti Saikia, J - Heard Ms. N. Danggen, learned counsel for the appellants. Also heard Ms. T. Jini, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, Arunachal Pradesh, for the State respondent No. 1 and Mr. A. Saring, learned counsel for the respondent No. 2.

2. This is an appeal filed under Section 372 of the Cr.P.C., against the acquittal order dated 15.12.2015, passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Pasighat, in Psg. Session Case No. 272/12, under Section 436 of the Indian Penal Code.

3. For appreciation of the appeal, the prosecution case against the respondents may be stated first.

4. On 02.05.2012, 6 (six) persons, namely, Sri Kalen Danggen, Sri Dogan Taron, Sri Kanggong Komboh, Sri Adum Taron, Sri Anggo Komboh and Sri Kalom Komboh, have jointly filed an F.I.R. before the Officer-InCharge of Yingkiong Police Station alleging that the respondent No. 2 had burnt down a house on 24.02.2012.

5. On conclusion of the investigation, Police filed a Charge-Sheet against the present respondent No. 2, Smti Mum Peyang, under Section 436 of the Indian Penal Code.

6. During the trial, the prosecution has examined asmany as 11 (eleven) numbers of witnesses and finally, the Trial Court found the respondent No. 2 not guilty and acquitted her.

7. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid judgment, the present appeal has been filed.

8. The primary point raised by the learned counsel for the appellants is that the Trial Court did not appreciate the evidence in its proper perspective.

9. I shall take up the prosecution evidence available in the record.

10. Pw-1 is Sri Ayam Kirkom. He has stated in his evidence that on 24.02.2012, at around 12.00 noon, he met the respondent No. 2 at the place of occurrence. The respondent No. 2 told this witness that she was just passing by the place on her way to the house of a friend of hers.

wxyz

11. PW-2, Sri Meyam Sitek, who has stated in his evidence that the fire started in the back side of the house.

zyxw

11. Pw-3, Sri Dungge Sitek, is the Gaon Bura of the Village. He has stated that the house of Kalen Danggen was totally burnt on the day of occurrence. According to this witness, he met the respondent No. 2 in front of his house at about 12.00 noon on the day of occurrence.

12. Pw-4 is Smt. Yakpin Danggen. She has stated that she was not present in the Village when the house was burnt.

13. Pw-5, Sri N. Diyum, is the Police Investigating Officer of the Case. He spoke about the investigation.

14. Pw-6 is Sri Kalem Danggen, who is the informant of this case. He has stated that at the time of the incident, he was not present at the house. He has stated that he returned home after the incident at about 3.00 p.m.

15. Pw-7 is Sri Dogan Taron. He did not state anything about the occurrence. He has only stated that he was one of the victims of the fire incident.

16. Pw-8 is Sri Kanggong Komboh, who claimed to be one of the victims of the fire.

17. Pw-9, Sri Abum Taron, who is one of the complaints in the F.I.R. He has stated that he lodged the F.I.R. on the basis of information received from some other villagers who had seen the present respondent No. 2 near the place of occurrence during the incident.

18. Pw-10 is Sri Anggo Kombo, who is also one of the complainants. He has also stated that he has lodged the F.I.R. on the basis of information received from some villagers. He has stated that in the Kebang, the respondent No. 2 had admitted that she had thrown out one burning Biri to the house of Kalen Danggen which burnt the house.

19. Pw-11 is Sri Kalom Komboh, who is also one of the complainants of this case. He has stated that on the basis of the decision arrived at in Kebang where the respondent No. 2 admitted to have thrown a burning Biri to the house of Kalen Danggen which caused the fire.

20. I have carefully gone through the evidences. None of the prosecution witnesses have ever claimed to have seen the respondent No. 2 burning the house of the informant. In Kebang, the respondent No. 2 had reported