The court prioritizes the legitimacy of witness credibility and amicable settlements in criminal proceedings, allowing for the quashing of convictions when the informant withdraws their support.

Judgment :

S.S. Mishra, J.

1. The present Criminal Revision, filed under Section 401 read with Section 397 of Cr.P.C., is directed against the judgment and order dated 12.08.2015 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Athagarh in Criminal Appeal No.18 of 2014 and Criminal Appeal No.28 of 2014, whereby the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 04.03.2014 passed by the learned Assistant Sessions Judge, Athagarh in S.T. Case No.420 of 2007/S.T. Case No.2 of 2008 has been confirmed.

2. The prosecution case, in brief, is that, on 21.12.2003, the informant, Jharia Naik, of Badabareni, P.S. Narsinghpur, District- Cuttack, was sleeping in his house along with his family members. In the midnight, he found hot smoke inside his house. He went out of the house to find that the back side of the thatch of the house had been set ablazed and that the accused persons were standing under a mango tree inside the bari. Seeing the same, the accused persons threatened the informant to throw him in the fire. Out of fear, the informant raised hulla, hearing the same, one Sanatan Naik and one Bamadeba Naik came running and the accused persons fled away from the spot. The household articles and the paddy of the informant were destroyed in the fire.

Based on this incident, the informant lodged an F.I.R. at the Police Station and the case was registered vide Narasinghpur P.S. Case No.137 of 2003 and upon completion of the investigation, the charge sheet was submitted against the accused persons for the offences punishable under Sections 436 /506/34 of the I.P.C.

3. The prosecution, in order to prove its case, examined as many as 10 witnesses and exhibited 2 documents, whereas, the defence presented a plea of complete denial and examined 1 witness in support of its defence. P.W.6 is the informant, P.W.7 is his son. P.Ws.1 and 3 to 5 are the witnesses to the occurrence. P.W.2 and 8 are the seizure witnesses. P.Ws. 9 and 10 were the I.Os. in the present case.

4. The learned trial Court carefully analyzed the evidence on record and found all the accused persons guilty of the offences punishable under Sections 436 /506(ii)/34 of the I.P.C. and recorded its finding under relevant paragraphs 18,19 & 20 of the judgment, which read as under:

“18. From the evidence, it is clear that all the accused persons in furtherance of their common intention had set fire on the house of the informant with an intention that wrongful loss would be caused to the informant who was residing in that house along with his family of more than five members. Moreover, nothing has been elicited from the mouth of the IO that the informant had no house at the spot and that he was not residing there with his family. Since the evidence at hand clearly reveals that the accused persons in furtherance of their common intention had committed mischief by setting fire. On the house of the informant, which is used as a dwelling house, I am to hold that the accused persons are liable to be punished for the offence u/s 436/34 IPC .

19. The next allegation of the prosecution that is taken up for discussion is the allegation u/s 506/34 IPC . As far as the question of criminal intimidation is concerned the accused persons by their conduct of setting fire to the house of the informant had indeed created panic or alarm in the mind of the informant and his family members with an intent to cause destruction to the property of the informant. As such in view of the evidence and the discussion in the preceding paragraphs, I am to hold that the