The absence of solid evidence substantiates the dismissal of charges against the accused, emphasizing the need for credible proof in criminal prosecutions.

ORDER

Aggrieved by Annexure A12 - order of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court - I, Vaikom, declining to discharge the petitioner from the criminal prosecution initiated against him in C.C.No.449 of 2013 on the files of the said court, the petitioner has filed this revision petition.

2. The prosecution case is that on 31.03.2013, at about

11.30 pm, the petitioner criminally trespassed into the car porch of the residence of the defacto complainant / 2^nd respondent and set ablaze a goods vehicle, which belonged to the defacto complainant, which was parked there, causing loss to the tune of Rs.2 lakhs, to the defacto complainant. It is alleged that the petitioner committed the aforesaid act due to the previous enmity with the defacto complainant.

3. The case was registered by the Thalayolaparambu Police on 01.04.2013, on the basis of the First Information Statement given by the defacto complainant. However, the defacto complainant had stated that he was not aware of the assailant who committed the crime, though he suspected the involvement of the petitioner herein since there were pending litigations between them in connection with building work. After the completion of the investigation, the Sub Inspector of Police, Thalayolaparambu, laid the Final Report alleging the commission of the offences punishable under Sections 447 and

435 IPC by the petitioner herein.

4. In the present petition, the petitioner would contend that he is totally innocent, and that he has been falsely implicated in this case. It is further stated that the prosecution has been initiated against the petitioner without any substantial evidence pointing to the commission of the crime by him.

5. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor representing the State of Kerala.

6. In the Final Report laid by the Investigating Officer, ten witnesses are cited to establish the charge levelled against the petitioner. Among the above ten witnesses, CW1 is the defacto complainant, who gave Annexure A1 - First Information Statement to the Thalayolaparambu Police. As already stated above, CW1 has no case that he had seen the petitioner committing the offence. Nor had CW1 stated that he found the petitioner under suspicious circumstances in or around the place of occurrence. On the other hand, the needle of suspicion has been pointed to the petitioner for the sole reason that the petitioner and the defacto complainant are in enmity in connection with pending litigations. The four other witnesses cited as CWs 2 to 5 in the Final Report have only stated that they have seen the vehicle of the defacto complainant under fire on the night of 31.03.2013. There is absolutely no indication in the statements of any of those witnesses that they had the occasion to see the petitioner under suspicious circumstances in or around the place of occurrence.

7. CW6 has been cited by the Investigating Agency as the witness, who is said to have identified the petitioner as the accused in this case. On going through the statement given by CW6 to the Investigating Officer, it could be seen that there is absolutely no indication therein that he had the occasion to see the petitioner / accused near to the place of occurence. On the other hand, what has been stated by CW6 is that, while he was driving his tipper lorry in the night of 31.03.2013, through the road near Thalayolaparambu Government Hospital, he had seen the petitioner herein coming in the opposite direction driving a black car. In the concluding portion of his statement, CW6 has stated that the petitioner might be the person who had set ablaze the vehicle of the defacto complainant, since he was having enmit