State v. Vipiin Rajpoot and Others) arising out of Case Crime No

Judgment

4. According to the prosecution case, an incident is alleged to have occurred on 10.10.2018 when the accused are alleged to have torched the house of first informant resulting in loss of immovable/movable property valued at Rs. 2,50,000/-.

5. In view of above, Ram Kishor (informant/appellant herein ) submitted a written report (Tehrir) at Police Station Kulpahar, District Mahoba. Woman Head Constable Raj Kumari who was posted at Police Station- Kulpahar entered the said written report in the General Diary of Police Station, which is Ext. Ka-3. On the direction of the circle officer, she prepared the check 2 NC413 No. 530 of 2025 F.I.R. which was registered as Case Crime NO. 237/18, under section 436, 427, 504, 506 IPC, which is Ext.Ka-2.

6. After lodging of aforementioned F.I.R., S.I. Surendra Pratap Singh was

appointed as the Investigating Officer. He first complied with the formality of entering the written report and the F.I.R. in the Case Diary. He, thereafter recorded the statement of P.W.4 Raj Kumari, woman head constable, the scribe of the F.I.R. and then proceeded to the place of occurrence.

7. After reaching the place of occurrence, the Investigating Officer, P.W.5 S.I. Surendra Pratap Singh recorded the statement of the first informant, (P.W.1) under section 161 Cr.P.C. Thereafter on the pointing of first informant (P.W.1) he prepared the site plan of the place of occurrence. He, then recorded the statement of eye witness Shiv Singh (P.W.2). This witness got the videography of the place of occurrence. A copy of the said videography was made part of the case diary. P.W.2 further provided photograph of the burned animal shed which was also made part of the case diary. Since offence complained of is cognizable and non bailable therefore, Investigating Officer took steps for arrest of accused. He, therefore, arrested accused Vipin Rajpoot on 13.10.2018.

8. Investigating Officer again went to the place of occurrence and collected burned chaff and pieces of pipe. He put them separately in polythene bags. Thereafter, he placed the same in a piece of cloth and sealed them and deposited the same at the Police Station. He, thereafter prepared an arrest memo, of arrested accused- Vipin Rajpoot and recorded the statements of the witnesses of aforesaid recovery i.e. Laxman Singh and Phool Singh. He, further recorded the statement of arrested accused Vipiin Rajpoot. On

14.10.2018, Investigating Officer arrested another accused Arjun Rajpoot. Ultimately, on the basis of material collected by the Investigating Officer he came to the conclusion that the occurrence complained of is prima facie established and the complicity of the named accused in the crime in question is also apparent. Investigating Officer thereafter submitted the charge sheet/police report No. 208 of 2018 dated 14.10.2018, in terms of Section 173(2) Cr.P.C. whereunder the named accused were charge-sheeted under section 436, 427, 504 and 506 IPC.

9. After submission of aforementioned charge sheet/ police report, cognizance was taken upon same by the jurisdictional Magistrate. However, 3 NC413 No. 530 of 2025 as offence complained of is triable exclusively by the Court of sessions, therefore, the Jurisdictional Magistrate, after complying with the formality of supplying the documents to be relied upon by the prosecution to the accused, as per the requirement of section 207 Cr.P.C. committed the case to the court of Sessions as per mandate of Section 209 Cr.P.c. vide committal order dated 3.11.2018.

10. Resultantly, Sessions Trial No. 104 of 2018 (State Vs. Vipin Rajpoot and Others) came to be registered in the Court of Sessions Judge, Mahoba. The Sessions Judge proceeded with the trial. Accordingly, in compliance of Section 228 Cr.P.C. the concerned Sessions Jduge, framed charges against the charge sheeted accused, vide framing of charge order dated 30.11.2018. Separate and distinct charges were framed for an offense under section 436, 427, 506 IPC.

11. Charge sheeted accused denied the charged so framed. They pleaded innocence and demanded trial. Resultantly, the trial procedure commenced.

12. In view of above burden fell upon the prosecution, to lead cogent and reliable evidence to bring home the charges so framed against the charge sheeted accused. Prosecution, in discharge of aforesaid burden, adduced the following prosecution witnesses;- (i). P.W.1 Ram Kishore (first informant) (ii). P.W.2 Shiv Singh (eye witness) (iii). P.W.3 Brij Lal (iv). P.W.4 S.I. Raj Kumari, (v). P.W.5 S.I. Rajesh Kumar Singh (Investigating Officer) (vi). P.W.6

13. Apart from relying upon the depositions of aforementioned prosecution witness, prosecution also relied upon documentary evidence. The same is tabulated herein under;- (i). Ex. Ka-1 Written report (Tehrir) subitted by P.W.1 Ram Kishor (first informant) at Police Station- Kulpahad, District-Mahoba and proved by P.W.1 4 NC413 No. 530 of 2025 (ii). Ext. Ka.-2, Check F.I.R. dated 11.2.2018, prepared by P.W.4, S.I. Raj Kumari (who was then posted as woman head constable) at P.S. Kulpahad, District Mahoba. (iii). Ext. Ka-3- G.D. entry of the written report (Tehrir) submitted by P.W.1, Ram Kishor, prepared by P.W.4 S.I. Raj Kumari (then posted as woman head constable at P.S. Kulpahad, District- Mahoba) and proved by P.W.4. (iv). Ext. Ka-4 Charge sheet NO. 208 of 2018 dated 14.10.2018 prepared by P.W.5. S.I. Surendra Pratap Singh and proved by P.W.5. (v). Ext. Ka-5 Site Plan of the place of occurrence prepared and proved by P.W.5 S.I. Surendra Pratap singh. (vi). Ext. Ka-6 Arrest Memo of accused Arjun Rajpoot prepared by P.W.5 S.I. Surendra Pratap Singh and proved by P.W.5. (vii). Ext.Ka-7 Arrest memo of accused Vipin Rajpoot prepared by P.W.5 S.I. Surendra Singh Rajpoot and proved by P.W.5. (viii). Ext. Ka-8 Memo of Recovery prepared and proved by P.W.5 S.I. Surendra Pratap Singh

14. After the prosecution evidence was over, all the adverse and incriminating circumstances were disclosed to the accused for their version of the occurrence. The accused denied the same. They however stated that the prosecution story is false. According to the accused, P.W.1, P.W.2 and P.W.3 have given false depositions. Accused have been falsely implicated in a false case on account of old rivalry. The residents of the village have got a false case registered against accused.

15. On behalf of the prosecution it was urged before Court below that at 7:00 pm on 10.10.2018, the accused torched the animal shed of the first informant on account of which the goods kept therein i.e. 40 trolleys of chaff (bhoosa) and 500 ft of Pipe got completely burned resulting in a loss of Rs. 2,50,000/- The occurrence was witnessed by P.W.1 Ram Kishor (first informant) and P.W. 2 Shiv Singh (eye witnesses). The accused also extended threat of killing the informant and his brother and hurled abusive language. On Brij Lal (P.W.3) also came on the spot at the time of occurrence. All the three prosecution witnesses have in their depositions supported the prosecution case. The formal witnesses have also supported the prosecution of the 5 NC413 No. 530 of 2025 accused. As such the charges under section 436, 427, 504 and 506 IPC framed against accused are fully proved and therefore, they are liable to be convicted.

16. Opposing the submissions urged on behalf of prosecution as noted above, it was urged on behalf of accused before court below that there is delay in lodging the FI.R. The F.I.R. was lodged with a delay of one day even when the police station is at a distance of one kilometer from the place of occurrence. The first informant in his statement has clearly stated that after a call was made on dial 100 the sub-inspector of police, four police personnel, home guard and Naib Tehsildar arrived on the spot. The wife and children of first informant were present on the spot but they have not been adduced in evidence. But Shiv Singh, brother of first informant, who is a resident of distant place from the house of first informant, has been adduced as an eye witness. Shiv Singh and Brij Raj were not present at the place of occurrence. The first informant himself resides at the place of occurrence alongwith his family and his wife cooked food there itself. It is because of this that the chaff (Bhoosa) might have caught fire. The accused have been falsely implicated on account of rivalry. There are houses situate in the vicinity of the animal shed where the occurrence took place. The shed of Vipin is on the north side which is appurtenant to the cattle shed, where the occurrence took place. The shop of Arjun is also situate at some distance. No person from the vicinity has been adduced in evidence. Even the Niab Tehsildar, the Sub Inspector of Police, Police Personnel, who had arrived on the spot immediately after the occurrence, have not been produced in evidence. The occurrence in question is not proved as per the deposition of any of the prosecution witnesses. As such, the accused are liable to be acquitted of the charges framed against them.

17. Court below thereafter examined and evaluated the prosecution case, the defence relied upon by the accused, in proof of their innocence in the light of evidence on record. After undertaking the aforesaid exercise, it came to the conclusion that prosecution has failed to prove the guilt of accused beyond reasonable doubt Accordingly, the Sessions Judge, Mahoba by means of judgement and order dated 28.08.2025 extended the benefit of doubt to the accused and acquitted them of the charges framed against them on following grounds/reasons:- (a). P.W.-1, Ram Kishore in his deposition before court below has stated that 6 NC413 No. 530 of 2025 he alongwith his wife and children resides at the place of occurrence. He also admits that food is also cooked at the place of occurrence by his wife on a wooden stove and he was relaxing after partaking his meal on the date of occurrence. On the other hand, this witness P.W.-1 has stated that his brother has come to give food. As such, the presence of Shiv Singh (P.W.2) brother of first informant is doubtful at the time and place of occurrence. (b). P.W.1 Ram Kishore, in his deposition, has also admitted that his wife and children were present at the time and place of occurrence. As such, they are eye witnesses of the occurrence and could therefore prove the truth of the occurrence. However, they were not adduced in evidence. (c). All the three prosecution witnesses of fact have admitted in their depositions that the job of extinguishing the fire continued for days together. The fire fighter engine had also arrived on the spot. (d). The prosecution witnesses of fact have also deposed that accused Arjun got scorched while torching the cattle shed. However, no such fact has been mentioned in the arrest memo of the accused Arjun that he has sustained burn injury on his person. (e). It has come in evidence of P.W.1 Ram Kishore that after torching the house of first informant the accused ran away after jumping from the house of Dharmpal which is 10 ft. height. However, he does not know whether the accused sustained any injury or not. (f). The first informant P.W.1 Ram kishore has narrated a false story in his deposition as the manner of occurrence alleged by P.W.1 is highly improbable. The prosecution story that accused climbed the earthen lintel roof with country made gun in one hand and and a bottle of petrol in another hand is almost an impossible task. (g). The accused had not come to torch the house of first informant, because the way, by which the accused are alleged to have come to the house of first informant, thereafter climbing the gummo to reach the earthen lintel and thereafter jumping from 10 ft. high wall is improbable as the shop and animal shed of Arjun and Vipin are situate nearby. (h). The first informant has narrated a false story in his deposition before court. 7 NC413 No. 530 of 2025 (i). It does not stand to reason as to how Vipin and Arujun who themselves run a shop will come to the house of first informant for demanding money to consume alcohol. Moreover no explanation in this regard has emerged in deposition of P.W.1. (j). P.W.3 Brajlal has only proved the fact that when he was returning from the field then he saw that there is fire in the cattle shed. Ram Kishore, son of Phool Singh and Shiv Singh were extinguishing the fire and were shouting that Vipin and Arjun have torched the cattle shed after sprinkling petrol. As such, P.W.3 is not an eye witness of the occurrence, as the act of torching the cattle shed by the accused was not committed in front of him. (k). P.W. 3 Brajlal has denied the presence of wife and children of informant i.e. P.W.1 at the time and place of occurrence in the cattle shed whereas according to the informant they were present at place of occurrence i.e. cattle (l). Since the house of accused is appurtenant to the cattle shed where the occurrence took place, therefore, there is very little possibility of the accused torching the cattle shed of first informant. (m). P.W.1 is the only witness of the occurrence. However, this witness has not proved the presence of his brother Shiv Singh (P.W.2) at the time and place of occurrence. (n). After the cattle shed caught fire, fire fighting engine, arrived on the spot alongwith Naib Tehsildar, Sub Inspector of Police and Police Personnel. However, none of the aforesaid officials were adduced in evidence, whose testimony could prove that the cattle shed was torched after sprinkling petrol. (o). It is alleged by the prosecution that accused- Vipin was having a gun , whereas accused Arjun was holding a country made gun. However, neither of the weapons were recovered. Apart from above, the factum of threat having been extended by the accused to the first informant that he will be killed also could not be proved by the prosecution. (p). P.W.5 S.I. Surendra Pratap Singh in his deposition has clearly stated that Shiv Singh is the real brother of first informant. The cattle shed of first informant is situate in the middle of village appurtenant to the RCC road in Abadi. P.W.5 has further stated that he does not know whether the first 8 NC413 No. 530 of 2025 informant had given a police call or not but he reached the place of occurrence. He, has further deposed that he also does not know as to who had informed the Naib Tehsildar and upon whose direction, he had reached the place of occurrence. No recovery of weapons was made from the accused. The petrol bottle used in the commission of crime in question was also burned in the fire. It is thus evident from the deposition of the Investigating Officer that the cattle shed of informant is situate in the midst of Abadi. The Investigaing Officer on the basis of the statement of the first informant and his brother had submitted the charge sheet. However, the first informant in his deposition has admitted that the house of his brother is situate far away where he resides. No person of the vicinity was nominated as a prosecution witness even when the Investigating Officer admitted that he reached the place of occurrence immediately after the occurrence.

18. In view of aforesaid circumstances, which are adverse to the prosecution and the said adverse circumstance having not been explained by the prosecution, therefore, the prosecution failed to establish the guilt of accused beyond reasonable doubt. As such, court below granted the benefit of doubt to the accused and acquitted them of the charges framed against them.

19. Thus feeling aggrieved by the aforesaid judgement passed by court below, the first informant/appellant has not approached this Court by filing the present appeal under section 413 BNSS i.e. Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita.

20. Mr. Sanjay Singh Sengar, the learned counsel for appellant, in challenge to the impugned judgement, contends before us that the impugned judgement passed by court below is manifestly illegal and perverse being against the weight of evidence on record. Elaborating his argument, the learned counsel for appellant urged that present case is a case of direct evidence, as P.W.-1, Ram Kishore (informant), P.W.-2, Shiv Singh and P.W.-3, Braj Lal are eye witnesses of the occurrence. All the eye witnesses of occurrence have supported the prosecution case and given consistent account of time and place of occurrence, the manner of occurrence as well as the presence of accused at the time and place of occurrence. The evidence on record i..e the burned articles which is Chaff and pipe were also collected by the Investigating Officer from the place of occurrence, which clearly proves that the cattle shed of the first informant was torched by the named accused resulting in loss of goods valued at Rs. 2,50,000/-. According to the learned counsel for appellant, it is thus evident that all the three prosecution 9 NC413 No. 530 of 2025 witnesses of fact were present at the time and place of occurrence and their depositions are worthy of credit and reliance. The fate of the prosecution case cannot be judged on the ground that some witnesses have not been adduced in evidence. The guilt of the accused has to be judged with reference to the evidence on record and not on the ground that the prosecution did not adduce a particular witness in evidence. Court below has granted the benefit of doubt to the accused not on the ground that the depositions of three prosecution witnesses of fact are not worthy of credit and reliance but on the basis of an adverse inference drawn by court below with reference to certain circumstances, which according to court below are adverse to prosecution itself. It is thus urged by the learned counsel for appellant that court below has not exercised it's jurisdiction with due diligence but with material irregularity. The accused have been acquitted of the charges framed against them on extra judicial grounds. As such, the impugned judgement passed by Court below is liable to be set aside by this Court and the appeal be allowed.

21. Per contra, Mr. Pankaj Srivastava, the learned A.G.A.-Ist alongwith Mr. Prashant Kumar, the learned A.G.A. for State-opposite party-1 has vehemently opposed the present appeal. He submits that the impugned judgement passed by Court below is perfectly just and legal. Court below has neither ignored any material piece of evidence nor has it misconstrued any vital evidence. The inference/conclusion drawn by court below on the basis of proved/admitted facts is the logical inference/conclusion which could be drawn from the material on record. In view of above, it cannot be said that impugned judgment same is against the weight of evidence on record. As such, no perversity can be attached to the impugned judgement either.. Learned A.G.A. then invited the attention of the Court to the penultimate part of the impugned judgement and with reference to same, he submits that Court below has disbelieved the prosecution case on the ground that it is improbable. The effect of the same is though P.W.1 and P.W.2 are witnesses of fact and have supported the prosecution case, however, they are unworthy of belief and reliance. The reasons, which have swayed with court below, is that a man may lie but circumstances will not. The varied circumstances noted by court below for disbelieving the prosecution case cannot be said to be illusionary but have been deduced by Court below upon due evaluation of the evidence on record. The varied circumstances noted by court below are adverse to the case of the prosecution. However, the 10 NC413 No. 530 of 2025 prosecutioin failed to explain the same. It is on account of above that court below concluded that prosecution has failed to prove the guilt of accused beyond reasonable doubt. Since the benefit of doubt always goes to the accused, therefore, no illegality can be said to have been committed by court below in granting the said benefit to the accused. As such, Court below has exercised it's jurisdiction diligently and not in a casual and cavalier fashion. It is thus urged by the learned A.G.A. that the impugned judgement passed by Court below is not liable to be interfered with. In view of above, the present appeal is liable to be dismissed.

22. Having heard the learned counsel for appellant, the learned A.G.A.-Ist for State/opposite party-1 and upon perusal of the impugned judgement passed by Court below, this Court finds that the solitary question, which arises for determination in present appeal is :- Whether the conclusion drawn by court below that prosecution has failed to establish the guilt of accused beyond reasonable doubt therefore the accused are entitled to the benefit of doubt and thus, acquitted them of the charges framed is legally sustainable or Whether the deposition of P.W.1, P.W.2 and P.W.3 clearly proves the guilt of accused and therefore court below has erred in acquitting the accused.

23. Before proceeding to answer the points of determination so framed, it shall be useful to reiterate the nature of jurisdiction of appellate court in criminal matters and also the limitation with the court of appeal while dealing with a judgement of acquittal.

24. An appellate court is the last court of fact in Criminal matters. Therefore, the appellate court while exercising its appellate jurisdiction is not required to point out the perversity in the findings returned by court below but to find out whether as per the evidence on record, court below has rightly acquitted the accused or has erred in law and fact in acquitting the accused.

25. There is, however, a caveat to the aforesaid principle. Time and again the Apex Court has cautioned the courts about the limited scope of interference by a court of appeal in an appeal against acquittal. We do not wish to burden our judgement with the numerous authorities of the Supreme Court on the point but shall only refer to one judgement of Supreme Court in Babu Sahebagouda Rudragoudar Vs. State of Karnataka, 2024 SCC Online SC 561, wherein the Bench has crystalized the arameters regarding exercise of 11 NC413 No. 530 of 2025 jurisdiction by an appellate Court while dealing with a judgement of accquital . Paragraphs 39 and 40 of the aforesaid judgment are relevant for the present purpose and are, therefore, reproduced herein below:- "39. Thus, it is beyond the pale of doubt that the scope of interference by an appellate Court for reversing the judgment of acquittal recorded by the trial Court in favour of the accused has to be exercised within the four corners of the following principles:- (a) That the judgment of acquittal suffers from patent perversity; (b) That the same is based on a misreading/omission to consider material evidence on record; (c) That no two reasonable views are possible and only the view consistent with the guilt of the accused is possible from the evidence available on record.

40. The appellate Court, in order to interfere with the judgment of acquittal would have to record pertinent findings on the above factors if it is inclined to reverse the judgment of acquittal rendered by the trial Court."

26. Court below, upon evaluation of the evidence on record, has concluded that PW-3 Brajlal is not an eye witness of the act of torching. The presence of PW-2 at the time and place of occurrence has been disbelieved by Court below as he is a chance witness. However, the reason assigned by PW-1 regarding the presence of PW-2 at the time and place of occurrence has not been accepted by Court below being unnatural and not convincing. The prosecution story as unfolded in the deposition of PW-1 has been found to be improbable. Aforesaid conclusion drawn by Court below is on the basis of threadbare examination of the prosecution witnesses of fact i.e. P.W.1, P.W.2, and P.W.3. After undertaking the aforesaid exercise i.e. evaluating the prosecution witnesses of fact, Court below has recorded reasons for disbelieving the prosecution case. The reasons so recorded by Couret below are cogent reasons and also the logical conclusion that could be drawn upon evaluation of the depositions of prosecution witnesses of fact and the circumstances of the case, we wish to point out that court below has specifically recorded that no inmate of the cattle shed who was present at the time and place of occurrence, or vicinity was produced in evidence by the 12 NC413 No. 530 of 2025 prosecution. We specifically asked the learned counsel for appellant as to how the conclusion drawn by Court below regarding the nature and credibility of the prosecution witnesses of fact as well as the reasons recorded by Court below for disbelieving the prosecution witnesses of fact as well as the prosecution case itself can be said to be against the weight of evidence on record, the learned counsel for appellant only reiterated the submissions previously urged by him. He failed to point out that Court below has either ignored any evidence on record or has misconstrued any vital evidence on record. On the inference drawn by the court below regarding the prosecution case is illusionary.

27. We have ourselves examined the impugned judgment with caution and circumspection. Neither any such fact was discovered by us nor any such evidence came to our notice on the basis of which, we could hold that Court below has not exercised it's jurisdiction diligently but with material irregularity. This Court also finds that upon evaluation and examination of the prosecution case in the light of the depositions of the prosecution witnesses of fact and other evidence on record, the only conclusion that can be drawn is the one recorded by Court below.

28. In view of above, the Third principle laid down in the case of Babu Sahebagouda Rudragoudar (Supra), stands attracted i.e. "That no two reasonable views are possible and only the view consistent with the guilt of the accused is possible from the evidence available on record."

29. As a result, the present appeal fails and is liable to be dismissed.

30. It is, accordingly, dismissed. November 21, 2025 Arshad (Lakshmi Kant Shukla,J.) (Rajeev Misra,J.)

appointed as the Investigating Officer. He first complied with the formality of entering the written report and the F.I.R. in the Case Diary. He, thereafter recorded the statement of P.W.4 Raj Kumari, woman head constable, the scribe of the F.I.R. and then proceeded to the place of occurrence.

7. After reaching the place of occurrence, the Investigating Officer, P.W.5 S.I. Surendra Pratap Singh recorded the statement of the first informant, (P.W.1) under section 161 Cr.P.C. Thereafter on the pointing of first informant (P.W.1) he prepared the site plan of the place of occurrence. He, then recorded the statement of eye witness Shiv Singh (P.W.2). This witness got the videography of the place of occurrence. A copy of the said videography was made part of the case diary. P.W.2 further provided photograph of the burned animal shed which was also made part of the case diary. Since offence complained of is cognizable and non bailable therefore, Investigating Officer took steps for arrest of accused. He, therefore, arrested accused Vipin Rajpoot on 13.10.2018.

8. Investigating Officer again went to the place of occurrence and collected burned chaff and pieces of pipe. He put them separately in polythene bags. Thereafter, he placed the same in a piece of cloth and sealed them and deposited the same at the Police Station. He, thereafter prepared an arrest memo, of arrested accused- Vipin Rajpoot and recorded the statements of the witnesses of aforesaid recovery i.e. Laxman Singh and Phool Singh. He, further recorded the statement of arrested accused Vipiin Rajpoot. On

14.10.2018, Investigating Officer arrested another accused Arjun Rajpoot. Ultimately, on the basis of material collected by the Investigating Officer he came to the conclusion that the occurrence complained of is prima facie established and the complicity of the named accused in the crime in question is also apparent. Investigating Officer thereafter submitted the charge sheet/police report No. 208 of 2018 dated 14.10.2018, in terms of Section 173(2) Cr.P.C. whereunder the named accused were charge-sheeted under section 436, 427, 504 and 506 IPC.

9. After submission of aforementioned charge sheet/ police report, cognizance was taken upon same by the jurisdictional Magistrate. However, 3 NC413 No. 530 of 2025 as offence complained of is triable exclusively by the Court of sessions, therefore, the Jurisdictional Magistrate, after complying with the formality of supplying the documents to be relied upon by the prosecution to the accused, as per the requirement of section 207 Cr.P.C. committed the case to the court of Sessions as per mandate of Section 209 Cr.P.c. vide committal order dated 3.11.2018.

10. Resultantly, Sessions Trial No. 104 of 2018 (State Vs. Vipin Rajpoot and Others) came to be registered in the Court of Sessions Judge, Mahoba. The Sessions Judge proceeded with the trial. Accordingly, in compliance of Section 228 Cr.P.C. the concerned Sessions Jduge, framed charges against the charge sheeted accused, vide framing of charge order dated 30.11.2018. Separate and distinct charges were framed for an offense under section 436, 427, 506 IPC.

11. Charge sheeted accused denied the charged so framed. They pleaded innocence and demanded trial. Resultantly, the trial procedure commenced.

12. In view of above burden fell upon the prosecution, to lead cogent and reliable evidence to bring home the charges so framed against the charge sheeted accused. Prosecution, in discharge of aforesaid burden, adduced the following prosecution witnesses;- (i). P.W.1 Ram Kishore (first informant) (ii). P.W.2 Shiv Singh (eye witness) (iii). P.W.3 Brij Lal (iv). P.W.4 S.I. Raj Kumari, (v). P.W.5 S.I. Rajesh Kumar Singh (Investigating Officer) (vi). P.W.6

13. Apart from relying upon the depositions of aforementioned prosecution witness, prosecution also relied upon documentary evidence. The same is tabulated herein under;- (i). Ex. Ka-1 Written report (Tehrir) subitted by P.W.1 Ram Kishor (first informant) at Police Station- Kulpahad, District-Mahoba and proved by P.W.1 4 NC413 No. 530 of 2025 (ii). Ext. Ka.-2, Check F.I.R. dated 11.2.2018, prepared by P.W.4, S.I. Raj Kumari (who was then posted as woman head constable) at P.S. Kulpahad, District Mahoba. (iii). Ext. Ka-3- G.D. entry of the written report (Tehrir) submitted by P.W.1, Ram Kishor, prepared by P.W.4 S.I. Raj Kumari (then posted as woman head constable at P.S. Kulpahad, District- Mahoba) and proved by P.W.4. (iv). Ext. Ka-4 Charge sheet NO. 208 of 2018 dated 14.10.2018 prepared by P.W.5. S.I. Surendra Pratap Singh and proved by P.W.5. (v). Ext. Ka-5 Site Plan of the place of occurrence prepared and proved by P.W.5 S.I. Surendra Pratap singh. (vi). Ext. Ka-6 Arrest Memo of accused Arjun Rajpoot prepared by P.W.5 S.I. Surendra Pratap Singh and proved by P.W.5. (vii). Ext.Ka-7 Arrest memo of accused Vipin Rajpoot prepared by P.W.5 S.I. Surendra Singh Rajpoot and proved by P.W.5. (viii). Ext. Ka-8 Memo of Recovery prepared and proved by P.W.5 S.I. Surendra Pratap Singh

14. After the prosecution evidence was over, all the adverse and incriminating circumstances were disclosed to the accused for their version of the occurrence. The accused denied the same. They however stated that the prosecution story is false. According to the accused, P.W.1, P.W.2 and P.W.3 have given false depositions. Accused have been falsely implicated in a false case on account of old rivalry. The residents of the village have got a false case registered against accused.

15. On behalf of the prosecution it was urged before Court below that at 7:00 pm on 10.10.2018, the accused torched the animal shed of the first informant on account of which the goods kept therein i.e. 40 trolleys of chaff (bhoosa) and 500 ft of Pipe got completely burned resulting in a loss of Rs. 2,50,000/- The occurrence was witnessed by P.W.1 Ram Kishor (first informant) and P.W. 2 Shiv Singh (eye witnesses). The accused also extended threat of killing the informant and his brother and hurled abusive language. On Brij Lal (P.W.3) also came on the spot at the time of occurrence. All the three prosecution witnesses have in their depositions supported the prosecution case. The formal witnesses have also supported the prosecution of the 5 NC413 No. 530 of 2025 accused. As such the charges under section 436, 427, 504 and 506 IPC framed against accused are fully proved and therefore, they are liable to be convicted.

16. Opposing the submissions urged on behalf of prosecution as noted above, it was urged on behalf of accused before court below that there is delay in lodging the FI.R. The F.I.R. was lodged with a delay of one day even when the police station is at a distance of one kilometer from the place of occurrence. The first informant in his statement has clearly stated that after a call was made on dial 100 the sub-inspector of police, four police personnel, home guard and Naib Tehsildar arrived on the spot. The wife and children of first informant were present on the spot but they have not been adduced in evidence. But Shiv Singh, brother of first informant, who is a resident of distant place from the house of first informant, has been adduced as an eye witness. Shiv Singh and Brij Raj were not present at the place of occurrence. The first informant himself resides at the place of occurrence alongwith his family and his wife cooked food there itself. It is because of this that the chaff (Bhoosa) might have caught fire. The accused have been falsely implicated on account of rivalry. There are houses situate in the vicinity of the animal shed where the occurrence took place. The shed of Vipin is on the north side which is appurtenant to the cattle shed, where the occurrence took place. The shop of Arjun is also situate at some distance. No person from the vicinity has been adduced in evidence. Even the Niab Tehsildar, the Sub Inspector of Police, Police Personnel, who had arrived on the spot immediately after the occurrence, have not been produced in evidence. The occurrence in question is not proved as per the deposition of any of the prosecution witnesses. As such, the accused are liable to be acquitted of the charges framed against them.

17. Court below thereafter examined and evaluated the prosecution case, the defence relied upon by the accused, in proof of their innocence in the light of evidence on record. After undertaking the aforesaid exercise, it came to the conclusion that prosecution has failed to prove the guilt of accused beyond reasonable doubt Accordingly, the Sessions Judge, Mahoba by means of judgement and order dated 28.08.2025 extended the benefit of doubt to the accused and acquitted them of the charges framed against them on following grounds/reasons:- (a). P.W.-1, Ram Kishore in his deposition before court below has stated that 6 NC413 No. 530 of 2025 he alongwith his wife and children resides at the place of occurrence. He also admits that food is also cooked at the place of occurrence by his wife on a wooden stove and he was relaxing after partaking his meal on the date of occurrence. On the other hand, this witness P.W.-1 has stated that his brother has come to give food. As such, the presence of Shiv Singh (P.W.2) brother of first informant is doubtful at the time and place of occurrence. (b). P.W.1 Ram Kishore, in his deposition, has also admitted that his wife and children were present at the time and place of occurrence. As such, they are eye witnesses of the occurrence and could therefore prove the truth of the occurrence. However, they were not adduced in evidence. (c). All the three prosecution witnesses of fact have admitted in their depositions that the job of extinguishing the fire continued for days together. The fire fighter engine had also arrived on the spot. (d). The prosecution witnesses of fact have also deposed that accused Arjun got scorched while torching the cattle shed. However, no such fact has been mentioned in the arrest memo of the accused Arjun that he has sustained burn injury on his person. (e). It has come in evidence of P.W.1 Ram Kishore that after torching the house of first informant the accused ran away after jumping from the house of Dharmpal which is 10 ft. height. However, he does not know whether the accused sustained any injury or not. (f). The first informant P.W.1 Ram kishore has narrated a false story in his deposition as the manner of occurrence alleged by P.W.1 is highly improbable. The prosecution story that accused climbed the earthen lintel roof with country made gun in one hand and and a bottle of petrol in another hand is almost an impossible task. (g). The accused had not come to torch the house of first informant, because the way, by which the accused are alleged to have come to the house of first informant, thereafter climbing the gummo to reach the earthen lintel and thereafter jumping from 10 ft. high wall is improbable as the shop and animal shed of Arjun and Vipin are situate nearby. (h). The first informant has narrated a false story in his deposition before court. 7 NC413 No. 530 of 2025 (i). It does not stand to reason as to how Vipin and Arujun who themselves run a shop will come to the house of first informant for demanding money to consume alcohol. Moreover no explanation in this regard has emerged in deposition of P.W.1. (j). P.W.3 Brajlal has only proved the fact that when he was returning from the field then he saw that there is fire in the cattle shed. Ram Kishore, son of Phool Singh and Shiv Singh were extinguishing the fire and were shouting that Vipin and Arjun have torched the cattle shed after sprinkling petrol. As such, P.W.3 is not an eye witness of the occurrence, as the act of torching the cattle shed by the accused was not committed in front of him. (k). P.W. 3 Brajlal has denied the presence of wife and children of informant i.e. P.W.1 at the time and place of occurrence in the cattle shed whereas according to the informant they were present at place of occurrence i.e. cattle (l). Since the house of accused is appurtenant to the cattle shed where the occurrence took place, therefore, there is very little possibility of the accused torching the cattle shed of first informant. (m). P.W.1 is the only witness of the occurrence. However, this witness has not proved the presence of his brother Shiv Singh (P.W.2) at the time and place of occurrence. (n). After the cattle shed caught fire, fire fighting engine, arrived on the spot alongwith Naib Tehsildar, Sub Inspector of Police and Police Personnel. However, none of the aforesaid officials were adduced in evidence, whose testimony could prove that the cattle shed was torched after sprinkling petrol. (o). It is alleged by the prosecution that accused- Vipin was having a gun , whereas accused Arjun was holding a country made gun. However, neither of the weapons were recovered. Apart from above, the factum of threat having been extended by the accused to the first informant that he will be killed also could not be proved by the prosecution. (p). P.W.5 S.I. Surendra Pratap Singh in his deposition has clearly stated that Shiv Singh is the real brother of first informant. The cattle shed of first informant is situate in the middle of village appurtenant to the RCC road in Abadi. P.W.5 has further stated that he does not know whether the first 8 NC413 No. 530 of 2025 informant had given a police call or not but he reached the place of occurrence. He, has further deposed that he also does not know as to who had informed the Naib Tehsildar and upon whose direction, he had reached the place of occurrence. No recovery of weapons was made from the accused. The petrol bottle used in the commission of crime in question was also burned in the fire. It is thus evident from the deposition of the Investigating Officer that the cattle shed of informant is situate in the midst of Abadi. The Investigaing Officer on the basis of the statement of the first informant and his brother had submitted the charge sheet. However, the first informant in his deposition has admitted that the house of his brother is situate far away where he resides. No person of the vicinity was nominated as a prosecution witness even when the Investigating Officer admitted that he reached the place of occurrence immediately after the occurrence.

18. In view of aforesaid circumstances, which are adverse to the prosecution and the said adverse circumstance having not been explained by the prosecution, therefore, the prosecution failed to establish the guilt of accused beyond reasonable doubt. As such, court below granted the benefit of doubt to the accused and acquitted them of the charges framed against them.

19. Thus feeling aggrieved by the aforesaid judgement passed by court below, the first informant/appellant has not approached this Court by filing the present appeal under section 413 BNSS i.e. Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita.

20. Mr. Sanjay Singh Sengar, the learned counsel for appellant, in challenge to the impugned judgement, contends before us that the impugned judgement passed by court below is manifestly illegal and perverse being against the weight of evidence on record. Elaborating his argument, the learned counsel for appellant urged that present case is a case of direct evidence, as P.W.-1, Ram Kishore (informant), P.W.-2, Shiv Singh and P.W.-3, Braj Lal are eye witnesses of the occurrence. All the eye witnesses of occurrence have supported the prosecution case and given consistent account of time and place of occurrence, the manner of occurrence as well as the presence of accused at the time and place of occurrence. The evidence on record i..e the burned articles which is Chaff and pipe were also collected by the Investigating Officer from the place of occurrence, which clearly proves that the cattle shed of the first informant was torched by the named accused resulting in loss of goods valued at Rs. 2,50,000/-. According to the learned counsel for appellant, it is thus evident that all the three prosecution 9 NC413 No. 530 of 2025 witnesses of fact were present at the time and place of occurrence and their depositions are worthy of credit and reliance. The fate of the prosecution case cannot be judged on the ground that some witnesses have not been adduced in evidence. The guilt of the accused has to be judged with reference to the evidence on record and not on the ground that the prosecution did not adduce a particular witness in evidence. Court below has granted the benefit of doubt to the accused not on the ground that the depositions of three prosecution witnesses of fact are not worthy of credit and reliance but on the basis of an adverse inference drawn by court below with reference to certain circumstances, which according to court below are adverse to prosecution itself. It is thus urged by the learned counsel for appellant that court below has not exercised it's jurisdiction with due diligence but with material irregularity. The accused have been acquitted of the charges framed against them on extra judicial grounds. As such, the impugned judgement passed by Court below is liable to be set aside by this Court and the appeal be allowed.

21. Per contra, Mr. Pankaj Srivastava, the learned A.G.A.-Ist alongwith Mr. Prashant Kumar, the learned A.G.A. for State-opposite party-1 has vehemently opposed the present appeal. He submits that the impugned judgement passed by Court below is perfectly just and legal. Court below has neither ignored any material piece of evidence nor has it misconstrued any vital evidence. The inference/conclusion drawn by court below on the basis of proved/admitted facts is the logical inference/conclusion which could be drawn from the material on record. In view of above, it cannot be said that impugned judgment same is against the weight of evidence on record. As such, no perversity can be attached to the impugned judgement either.. Learned A.G.A. then invited the attention of the Court to the penultimate part of the impugned judgement and with reference to same, he submits that Court below has disbelieved the prosecution case on the ground that it is improbable. The effect of the same is though P.W.1 and P.W.2 are witnesses of fact and have supported the prosecution case, however, they are unworthy of belief and reliance. The reasons, which have swayed with court below, is that a man may lie but circumstances will not. The varied circumstances noted by court below for disbelieving the prosecution case cannot be said to be illusionary but have been deduced by Court below upon due evaluation of the evidence on record. The varied circumstances noted by court below are adverse to the case of the prosecution. However, the 10 NC413 No. 530 of 2025 prosecutioin failed to explain the same. It is on account of above that court below concluded that prosecution has failed to prove the guilt of accused beyond reasonable doubt. Since the benefit of doubt always goes to the accused, therefore, no illegality can be said to have been committed by court below in granting the said benefit to the accused. As such, Court below has exercised it's jurisdiction diligently and not in a casual and cavalier fashion. It is thus urged by the learned A.G.A. that the impugned judgement passed by Court below is not liable to be interfered with. In view of above, the present appeal is liable to be dismissed.

22. Having heard the learned counsel for appellant, the learned A.G.A.-Ist for State/opposite party-1 and upon perusal of the impugned judgement passed by Court below, this Court finds that the solitary question, which arises for determination in present appeal is :- Whether the conclusion drawn by court below that prosecution has failed to establish the guilt of accused beyond reasonable doubt therefore the accused are entitled to the benefit of doubt and thus, acquitted them of the charges framed is legally sustainable or Whether the deposition of P.W.1, P.W.2 and P.W.3 clearly proves the guilt of accused and therefore court below has erred in acquitting the accused.

23. Before proceeding to answer the points of determination so framed, it shall be useful to reiterate the nature of jurisdiction of appellate court in criminal matters and also the limitation with the court of appeal while dealing with a judgement of acquittal.

24. An appellate court is the last court of fact in Criminal matters. Therefore, the appellate court while exercising its appellate jurisdiction is not required to point out the perversity in the findings returned by court below but to find out whether as per the evidence on record, court below has rightly acquitted the accused or has erred in law and fact in acquitting the accused.

25. There is, however, a caveat to the aforesaid principle. Time and again the Apex Court has cautioned the courts about the limited scope of interference by a court of appeal in an appeal against acquittal. We do not wish to burden our judgement with the numerous authorities of the Supreme Court on the point but shall only refer to one judgement of Supreme Court in Babu Sahebagouda Rudragoudar Vs. State of Karnataka, 2024 SCC Online SC 561, wherein the Bench has crystalized the arameters regarding exercise of 11 NC413 No. 530 of 2025 jurisdiction by an appellate Court while dealing with a judgement of accquital . Paragraphs 39 and 40 of the aforesaid judgment are relevant for the present purpose and are, therefore, reproduced herein below:- "39. Thus, it is beyond the pale of doubt that the scope of interference by an appellate Court for reversing the judgment of acquittal recorded by the trial Court in favour of the accused has to be exercised within the four corners of the following principles:- (a) That the judgment of acquittal suffers from patent perversity; (b) That the same is based on a misreading/omission to consider material evidence on record; (c) That no two reasonable views are possible and only the view consistent with the guilt of the accused is possible from the evidence available on record.

40. The appellate Court, in order to interfere with the judgment of acquittal would have to record pertinent findings on the above factors if it is inclined to reverse the judgment of acquittal rendered by the trial Court."

26. Court below, upon evaluation of the evidence on record, has concluded that PW-3 Brajlal is not an eye witness of the act of torching. The presence of PW-2 at the time and place of occurrence has been disbelieved by Court below as he is a chance witness. However, the reason assigned by PW-1 regarding the presence of PW-2 at the time and place of occurrence has not been accepted by Court below being unnatural and not convincing. The prosecution story as unfolded in the deposition of PW-1 has been found to be improbable. Aforesaid conclusion drawn by Court below is on the basis of threadbare examination of the prosecution witnesses of fact i.e. P.W.1, P.W.2, and P.W.3. After undertaking the aforesaid exercise i.e. evaluating the prosecution witnesses of fact, Court below has recorded reasons for disbelieving the prosecution case. The reasons so recorded by Couret below are cogent reasons and also the logical conclusion that could be drawn upon evaluation of the depositions of prosecution witnesses of fact and the circumstances of the case, we wish to point out that court below has specifically recorded that no inmate of the cattle shed who was present at the time and place of occurrence, or vicinity was produced in evidence by the 12 NC413 No. 530 of 2025 prosecution. We specifically asked the learned counsel for appellant as to how the conclusion drawn by Court below regarding the nature and credibility of the prosecution witnesses of fact as well as the reasons recorded by Court below for disbelieving the prosecution witnesses of fact as well as the prosecution case itself can be said to be against the weight of evidence on record, the learned counsel for appellant only reiterated the submissions previously urged by him. He failed to point out that Court below has either ignored any evidence on record or has misconstrued any vital evidence on record. On the inference drawn by the court below regarding the prosecution case is illusionary.

27. We have ourselves examined the impugned judgment with caution and circumspection. Neither any such fact was discovered by us nor any such evidence came to our notice on the basis of which, we could hold that Court below has not exercised it's jurisdiction diligently but with material irregularity. This Court also finds that upon evaluation and examination of the prosecution case in the light of the depositions of the prosecution witnesses of fact and other evidence on record, the only conclusion that can be drawn is the one recorded by Court below.

28. In view of above, the Third principle laid down in the case of Babu Sahebagouda Rudragoudar (Supra), stands attracted i.e. "That no two reasonable views are possible and only the view consistent with the guilt of the accused is possible from the evidence available on record."

29. As a result, the present appeal fails and is liable to be dismissed.

30. It is, accordingly, dismissed. November 21, 2025 Arshad (Lakshmi Kant Shukla,J.) (Rajeev Misra,J.)