The central legal point established in the judgment is the requirement to prove the accused's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, considering the elements of intent and knowledge under the relevant sections of the Indian Penal Code.

Chander Bhusan Barowalia, J.

The present criminal appeal, under Section 378 of the Code of Criminal Procedure has been maintained by the State of Himachal Pradesh, against the judgment of acquittal, dated 19.02.2008, passed by learned Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Karsog, District Mandi, H.P., in Police Challan No. 39-II of 2006, under Sections 427 and 435 of the Indian Penal Code.

2. The key facts, giving rise to the present appeal as per the prosecution story are that on 29.12.2005, at about 07.30 p.m., a truck bearing registration No. HP-30-1751, loaded with resin tins, reached at resin depot Mansana, from which, Krishan Lal/accused (hereinafter to be called as “the accused”) alongwith labourers and truck driver stepped down, the truck driver told them that it is too late to go further and the truck will go ahead on next morning. Thereafter the labourers, stepped down from the truck, told Paras Ram/complainant (hereinafter to called as “the complainant”) that they are going to their home and will come back by tomorrow morning, whereas the accused stayed there and after collecting dry grass and woods from the nearby bushes, he put fire to the same. The complainant tried to stop him and told him to not put fire thereon as resin depot is nearby, wherein resin tins are lying which would catch the fire, but the accused did not paid heed to him and put fire to the collected dry grass and wood and within no time fire spread into the nearby dry bushes and grass, however the complainant tried to extinguish the same by putting some water into it, but failed to control the same. The complainant raised noise towards local people and labourers to help him to extinguish the fire, on hearing his noise, people of the village Mansana and labourers came to the spot and tried to extinguish the fire, but they could not control the same, as a result of which, 629 resin tins of the depot were burnt, however they managed to save 126 resin tins by throwing them out of the store. After telephonically informing the In-charge, resin depot Mansana, Sh. Bhawani Singh and Dy. Ranger Sh. Bhawani Dutt, the complainant reported the matter to the Police, vide Ext. PW-1/A, on the basis of which, FIR Ext. PW-7/A was registered against the accused and further investigation was conducted by the Police. During course of investigation, the Investigation Officer has visited the spot and prepared site plan, Ext. PW-8/A and took into possession a burnt empty resin tin, Ext. P-1, a full resin tin Ext. P-2, match box Ext. P-3, vide memos, Ext. PW-3/A & Ext. PW-3/B and sealed them with seal M & R, the same were also taken on white cloth, Ext. PA and PB. Statements of the other witnesses were also recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. and after completion of investigation, challan was presented in the Court.

3. Prosecution, in order to prove its case, examined as many as 8 witnesses. Statement of the accused was recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C, wherein he denied the prosecution case and claimed innocence. Accused did not lead any defence evidence. The learned trial Court, vide impugned judgment dated 19.02.2008, acquitted the accused for the commission of offences punishable under Sections 427 & 435 of the IPC, hence the present appeal.

4. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the record carefully.

5. Mr. Rajat Chauhan, learned Law Officer has argued that the prosecution has proved the guilt of the accused beyond the shadow of reasonable doubt, as the accused was present on the spot and the recovery of the ash and coal has been proved conclusively, which shows that it was the accused, who put the fire for warming himself, which resulted into a disaster and completely destroyed the resin depot and after re-appreciating the evidence, the accused be convicted. On the other hand, Ms. Ritika Jassal, learned vice counsel has argued that there are contradictions in the prosecution story, as PW-1 has stated that initially the accused put th