The veracity of witness testimonies and the conduct of the Investigating Officer are crucial in determining the outcome of a criminal case.

Sureshwar Thakur, J.

The instant appeal stands directed by the appellant/convict against judgment recorded by the learned Sessions Judge, Mandi, H.P. in Sessions Trial No.4 of 2005 on 7.5.2007, whereby, he convicted the accused/appellant herein for his committing offences punishable under Sections 436 and 427 besides sentenced him to suffer imprisonment for the aforesaid offences as under:

Sections	Sentenced imposed
436 of the IPC	Accused stands sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for five years with fine of Rs.10,000/-, in case of default in the payment of fine amount the accused shall further undergo imprisonment for one years.
427 of the IPC	Sentenced to suffer imprisonment for six months and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- and in default to undergo imprisonment for 1 month.

2. The facts relevant to decide the instant case are that on the intervening night of 13th and 14th October, 2003, complainant Narotam Ram was watching television at 10.45 p.m. in his house. Then he heard murmuring of persons on the back side of his house and the complainant came out and noticed that Ghanshayam and accused Tej Singh were going on the path by the side of the house of the complainant in tipsy condition. The complainant thereafter went to sleep and in the meantime his wife Kala Devi came outside the house to urinate. She raised cries and complainant immediately came outside and noticed that his cowshed has been set on fire and the complainant immediately untethered/untied the cow, buffalo and calf and brought them outside the cowshed. However, a domestic bitch could not be saved and was burnt in the house fire which has spread on all the sides. All the family members tried to extinguish the fire but the same could not be controlled. The complainant incurred loss of 3000 bundles of grass. In the meanwhile other persons from the village, on seeing the fire also tried to extinguish the fire. There were other articles in the cowshed which were also burnt. Tej Singh and Ghanshayam has put his house on fire because of previous enmity. Thereafter complainant Narotam made a telephone call in police post Rewalsar and the same was entered in the daily diary. Thereafter H.C. Joginder Pal rushed to the spot and found that the cowshed of Narotam was completely burnt by fire. Joinderpal recorded the statement of Narotam Ram and the same was sent through constable Subhash Chand to police station Balh for registration of the case. On the basis of which the FIR was registered in the police station concerned. The police started the investigations in the case and completed all the codel formalities.

3. On conclusion of the investigations, into the offences, allegedly committed by the accused, a report under Section 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure was prepared and filed in the competent Court.

4. The accused was charged by the learned trial Court for his committing offences punishable under Sections 436 and 427 of the IPC. In proof of the prosecution case, the prosecution examined 8 witnesses. On conclusion of recording of prosecution evidence, the statement of the accused under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure was recorded by the trial Court, in which he claimed innocence and pleaded false implication. However, he did not lead any defence evidence.

5. On an appraisal of the evidence on record, the learned trial Court, returned findings of conviction against the accused/appellant.

6. The convict/appellant is aggrieved by the judgment of conviction recorded by the learned trial Court. The learned defence counsel has concertedly and vigorously contended that the findings of conviction recorded by the learned trial Court are not based on a proper appreciation of the evidence on record, rather, they are sequelled by gross mis-appreciation of the material on record.