IMPORTANT POINT
The duty of the prosecution to prove guilt, the concept of presumption of innocence, the categorization of witnesses, and the court's duty to intervene for the ends of justice.

JUDGMENT :

1. Heard Sri Nadeem Murtaza, learned counsel for the appellant and Sri Ashok Srivastava, learned A.G.A. for the State as well as perused the record.

2. By means of the instant criminal appeal, the appellant has challenged the judgment and order dated 26.04.2000 passed by learned Second Additional Sessions Judge, Lucknow in Sessions Trial No.192 of 1995, convicting and sentencing the appellant under Section 436 I.P.C. for three years rigorous imprisonment.

3. The prosecution story as narrated in the First Information Report registered as Case Crime No.27 of 1991, under Sections 436 I.P.C. at Police Station Kaiserbagh, Lucknow on 23.04.1991 by one Shiv Das alleging therein that his son has been allotted a canteen in the compound of American Library Court where the informant was present on 23.01.1991 alongwith his two workers. At about 08:30 AM, the appellant who is an employee of Civil Court, allegedly came and asked for Suraj (Son of the informant), upon which, the informant told the appellant that he will come to canteen at about 11:00 A.M., hearing this, the appellant allegedly poured kerosene oil over the canteen and set the same on fire, due to which, not only the canteen was burnt but chamber of an advocate was also burnt.

4. Pursuant to the registration of the First Information Report, the police carried out investigation and submitted chargesheet against the appellant under Section 436 I.P.C. on 17.05.1991. The matter being triable by the court of sessions, was committed to the Sessions Court for trial where charge under section 436 IPC was framed against the appellant, who pleaded not guilty to the aforesaid charge and claimed to be tried.

5. In order to bring home the charge under section 436 IPC against the appellant, the prosecution produced following four persons as prosecution witnesses:-

(i) P.W.-1 Shivdas, Informant (alleged eye witness)

(ii) P.W.-2 Constable Girdhar Singh (Proved chik FIR and General Diary entry)

(iii) P.W.-3 Vijay Kumar, Employee of the Canteen (Alleged Eye Witness)

(iv) P.W.-4 Durgesh Kumar Tiwari, Investigating Officer.

6. The appellant in his statement under section 313 CrPC denied the case of prosecution and produced following two witness in his defence;-

(i) DW-1 Ajeet Singh Yadav, Clerk of Advocate whose chamber was burnt

(ii) DW-2 Mahendra Pratap Singh, Advocate

7. After having heard the rival submissions of parties, the Trial Court found appellant-accused guilty, therefore, convicted and sentenced him under Section 436 I.P.C. for three years rigorous imprisonment.

8. Feeling aggrieved by the judgment of conviction and sentence passed by Trial Court, the appellant-accused has preferred this appeal.

9. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the learned trial court has convicted the accused on the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses ignoring that their testimonies are full of infirmities and contradictions. PW-1 failed to assign any motive for the alleged offence throughout the entire prosecution story. Even he fails to recall the date, time and year of the alleged incident. PW-1 also failed to explain as to why he did not try to stop and catch the appellant. Moreover, his version that an Advocate went to police station along with him belied by PW-2, namely, constable Girdhar Singh, thus, making him unreliable witness.

10. Learned counsel for the appellant further submitted that same is the case with PW-3 whose testimony inspires no confidence.

11. Learned counsel for the appellant further submitted that on the other hand the defence witnesses are more reliable and their version seems to inspire much more confidence than that of prosecution. DW-1 who happens to be the clerk of an Advocate, whose seat got burnt, clearly stated that fire accident in the instant case was the result of the carelessness of the child employee of the Canteen who was trying to fill the Air in the stove.

12. Learned counsel for the appellant further submitted that likewise DW-2 who happens to be an Advoca