Order On Board

Per-Sanjay S.Agrawal, J.

03.01.2025

1. This appeal has been preferred by the appellant/State under Section 378 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, questioning the legality and propriety of the judgment dated 30.07.2012 passed by the Special Sessions Judge (Atrocity), Korba [Under the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities Act, 1989) (hereinafter referred to as the “Act, 1989”) in Special Sessions Case No. 52 of 2009, whereby, the respondents have been acquitted from the offence punishable under Sections

450, 436 of I.P.C and under Section 3 (2) (iv) of the Act, 1989.

2. Briefly stated the case of the prosecution is, that on 22.05.2009 at 09:30 AM., the complainant-Itwar Singh (PW-1) lodged the report before the Police Station Bankimongra, District Korba, alleging, inter-alia, that on the previous day, i.e. 21.05.2009 around 11:30 PM, Respondent no.1-Kaleshwar Soni along with his sons’, namely, Jitendra Kumar Soni and Manoj Soni and also with the help of his cousin, namely, Yamuna Prasad, entered into his house and burnt the same with the aid of kerosene oil and, at the relevant time, he was at home along with his wife, namely, Santra Bai (PW-3). It is alleged further that the said Kaleshwar Soni, while using matchstick has burnt his house, which caused household articles amounting to Rs.5,000/-. It is stated further that he informed the alleged incident to one Satrughan Singh Rajput and Anjor Singh. Based upon the alleged report, the Police Station- Bankimongra registered the offence punishable against the respondents under Section 436/34 of I.P.C., in connection with Crime No.114/2009. During investigation, Nazari Naksha (Ex.P-3) and Panchnama (Ex.P-4) were prepared and various articles have been seized. A disclosure statement of Respondent No.1- Kaleshwar Soni was recorded and bases upon which, a plastic bottle, which contained two and half litre of kerosene oil, has been seized vide seizure memo (Ex.P-7) and after completion of the usual investigation, the charge-sheet was submitted before the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Katghora against the Respondents for the offence punishable under Sections 436, 450 read with Section 34 of I.P.C. and also under Section 3 (2) (iv) of the Act, 1989 and, the matter was, thereafter, committed to the Special Sessions Judge (Atrocity) Korba, whereby, the alleged offence mentioned herein above has been framed, which were denied by the Respondents and claimed to be tried.

3. In order to bring home the guilt of the Respondents, the prosecution has examined as many as 8 witnesses and exhibited 11 documents, while none was examined by the Respondents in their defence.

4. The trial Court, after considering the evidence led by the prosecution, arrived at a conclusion that since there is material discrepancies in the statement of the complainant-Itwar Sing (PW- 1) and his wife-Santra Bai (PW-3), the Respondents are, therefore, not held to be the author of the alleged crime and, accordingly, they have been acquitted with regard to the alleged offence, occurred on 21.05.2009 around 11:30 P.M., and being aggrieved, the Appellant/State has preferred this appeal.

5. Learned counsel appearing for the Appellant/State submits that the finding of the Court below holding that the respondents are not the author of the alleged crime, is apparently, contrary to the materials available on record, inasmuch as, the evidence led by the prosecution has not been scanned in its proper manner and thereby, erred in acquitting them, as such.

6. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the Respondents has supported the impugned judgment of acquittal as passed by the trial Court.

7. We have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the entire record carefully.

8. From perusal of the record, it appears that the First Information Report (Ex.P-1) was lodged by the complainant-Itwar Singh on 22.05.2009 at 09:30 A.M., with regard to the incident occurred on the p