The court reaffirmed that the burden of proof in criminal cases lies solely with the prosecution, and doubts must lead to acquittal.

ORDER

This appeal under Section 372(2) of the Cr.P.C. has been filed by the appellant/complainant assailing the judgment and order of acquittal dated 22.01.2019 passed in S.T. No.66/2016 (State of M.P. vs. Sonal Singh) by the First Additional Sessions Judge, Devsar, District Singrauli (M.P.) whereby respondent No.2/accused, Sonal Singh, has been acquitted of the offence under Section 435 of IPC.

2. As per the prosecution story, on 12.02.2016, at about 7:00 p.m., Kiran Singh, wife of complainant, Vijay Kumar Singh, and her sister-in-law, Meera Singh, were going for call of nature. As they reached the road, they saw that the pigeon pea crop kept in barn was burning and their nephew, accused, Sonal Singh, was coming from the barn toward the road. Kiran Singh informed her husband, complainant, Vijay Kumar Singh, about the fire by phone. Vijay Kumar Singh, his elder brother Kalu Singh, Dalpratap Singh, and Laxman Singh, along with others, rushed to the barn and extinguished the fire. The loss of the pigeon pea crop was estimated at approximately Rs.60,000/-. According to the prosecution, before this incident, on 27.01.2016 and 31.01.2016, someone had set fire to the motorcycle of the complainant, Vijay Kumar Singh, but the identity of the person who set the fire was not known. Furthermore, the accused had told Laxman Singh of the village that if Dalpratap Singh goes to guard the house, the barn will catch fire. Regarding the entire incident, Vijay Kumar Singh expressed his suspicion on the accused about setting fire to the pigeon pea crop in his barn and submitted a written application Ex.P/1 to the Police Station, Garhwa and got the FIR Ex.P/2 registered. The police then registered Crime No. 27/2016. As part of the investigation, Ex.P/3, a map of the scene of fire was prepared. A panchnama (Ex.P/4) detailing the damage to the pigeon pea crop was prepared, and the burnt pigeon pea pods and grains, along with ashes, were seized from the scene as per the seizure memo (Ex.P/5). The accused was taken into custody and interrogated. He stated that he had set fire to the pigeon pea crop of the complainant and had thrown the matchbox near a nearby transformer. Based on the information provided by the accused, the matchbox was seized from the transformer in front of the complainant's house.

3. Thereafter, on the basis of complaint made by the appellant/complainant, FIR/Crime No.27/2016 has been registered against the respondent/accused for the commission of offence punishable under Section 435 of IPC. After investigation, the charge-sheet was filed. Charges were framed against the respondent/accused.

4. The respondent/accused abjured his guilt and pleaded complete innocence and he claimed to be tried. In his defence, he did not choose to examine any witness. Statements of the witnesses were recorded.

5. In order to bring home the charges, the prosecution has examined as many as 09 witnesses, namely, Vijay Kumar Singh (PW-1), Dalpratap Singh (PW-2), Kalu Sigh (PW-3), Kiran Singh (PW-4), Meera Singh (PW-5), Sudeen Singh (PW-6), Laxman Singh (PW-7), Rajeshwar Singh (PW-8) and R.P. Singh (PW-9) and placed Exs.P/1 to P/9, the documents on record whereas in defence, the accused has placed Ex.D/1 on record.

6. Learned trial Court after recording of evidence of both the parties has acquitted the respondent/accused, hence, this appeal.

7. It is submitted by learned counsel appearing on behalf of the present appellant/complainant that the learned trial Court has erroneously acquitted respondent No.2/accused, Sonal Singh, of the charge of commission of offence