The prosecution must prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, and non-examination of key witnesses can undermine the entire case, justifying acquittal.

JUDGMENT :

SHAMIMA JAHAN, J.

Heard Mr. L. R. Mazumder, learned counsel appearing for the appellant. Also heard Mr. M. P. Goswami, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State of Assam.

2. This is an appeal filed under Section 374 (2), of the Cr.P.C, 1973, assailing the judgment and order dated 22/05/2013, passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Cachar, in Sessions Case No. 181/2010, by which the appellant was convicted under Section 436 of the IPC and was sentenced to Rigorous Imprisonment for 1 year with a fine of Rs.3,000/- and in default to undergo 1 month imprisonment.

FACTS

3. The fact of the case in nutshell is that the informant, namely Md. Saraf Uddin, lodged an ejahar before the officer-in-charge of Jirighat, Police Station, Cachar, Assam, stating inter-alia that on 12/8/2006 at around 3.00 AM, he saw his brother's house being set on fire. On seeing this, he rushed to his brother's house. And while going, he saw the petitioner running from his brother's house and descending from the hillock and there the informant caught him saying that they should douse the fire, and as such, the informant took appellant to the house and tried to douse the fire. However, the informant stated that the appellant was simply standing there and was not extinguishing the fire, and on the said conduct, the appellant was suspected to have set the house on fire. It was further stated that the house, including the shop, its goods were burnt including ducks, fowls, and goats were completely gutted in the incident of fire. It was also alleged that there was a dispute with the appellant over a matter of road.

4. On receiving the ejahar, the police registered the case under Section 436 IPC as Jirighat P.S case No. 36/2006. The police, on completion of the investigation, submitted charge sheet against the appellant under of the . On completion of other necessary requirements of law, the charge was framed against the appellant on 24/09/2016 by the learned Sessions Judge, Cachar, Silchar under of the .

5. During the trial, the prosecution examined 5 (five) witnesses. And thereafter, the accused was examined under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C, and on completion of the trial, the appellant was convicted as mentioned above.

6. The police during their investigation had seized various articles from the place of occurrence, which was exhibited as Exhibit No. 2. The police have also exhibited some other seized articles vide Exhibit No. 3.

SUBMISSIONS

7. Mr. L.R Mazumdar, learned counsel for the appellant, submits that nobody had seen the appellant setting the house on fire, and the circumstances that are relied on by the trial Court are not acceptable in the facts of the present case. He submits that a person who sets a house on fire will never come back to the place of occurrence or stand before the scene and will try to escape therefrom as early as possible. The appellant had not tried the same, which shows his conduct under Section 8 of the Evidence Act, being not the perpetrator of the crime. He further submits that the P.W.1 had stated that there are 5-6 houses in the neighbourhood, but none of the inhabitants of the said houses were examined, and that only the relatives were examined in the instant case. He as such submits that non-examination of vital witness goes against the present conviction. He also submits that the investigating officer was not examined, which caused prejudice in the instant case.

8. Per contra, Mr. M. P. Goswami, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State, submits that the appellant was seen coming from the shop house which was set on fire and the time was 3:00 AM. And the same is very unusual for an innocent person