THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.1374 OF 2009 JUDGMENT: 1. The appeal by the State under Section 378(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short ‘Cr.P.C’), is directed against the judgment dated 15.09.2008 made in Sessions Case No.330 of 2006 on the file of the Assistant Sessions Judge, Gudur, whereunder and whereby the respondent/sole accused was found not guilty of the offence under Section 436 IPC. 2. The brief facts, which are necessary for disposal of the present appeal, may be stated as follows: There were misunderstandings between P.Naguraiah (P.W.1) and the family of the accused prior to 16.06.2005. On 16.06.2005 afternoon, while P.W.1 and his wife, P.W.2, were away from their house, the accused, who developed grudge against them, put fire to their house and ran away. The said incident was noticed by Punamalli Harikrishna (P.W.3), Punamalli Veeraraghavaiah (P.W.4) and Narendra (P.W.5) and they informed the same to P.W.1. On the report given by P.W.1, the police registered a case in Crime No.91 of 2005. P.W.7 took up investigation, proceeded to the scene of offence, prepared rough sketch of the scene in the presence of P.W.6 and another, and seized the incriminating material. During the course of investigation, the accused was arrested and remanded to judicial custody. After completion of the investigation, the police filed the charge sheet. 3. When the charge under Section 436 IPC was framed against the accused, read over and explained to her, she pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. 4. To substantiate the charge, the prosecution examined P.Ws.1 to 7 and got marked Exs.P1 to P8, besides marking case properties as M.Os.1 to 3. No oral or documentary evidence was adduced on behalf of accused. 5. After the prosecution evidence was closed, the accused was examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C with reference to the incriminating circumstances appearing against her in the evidence of the prosecution witnesses. The accused denied the same. 6. The trial Court, after appreciation of the evidence on record, came to the conclusion that there is no evidence to show that the accused set fire to the house of P.W.1 and, accordingly, acquitted her. Challenging the same, the present appeal is preferred by the State. 7. Now the point, which has to be decided in this appeal, is whether the accused is the person, who set fire to the house of P.Ws. 1 to 3. 8. The contention of the learned counsel representing learned Public Prosecutor is that the evidence of P.W.7, the investigating officer, is that on receipt of report from P.W.1, he proceeded to the scene of offence and prepared the rough sketch-Ex.P7 and observation report-Ex.P8, that the evidence of this witness would clearly go to show that the house of P.Ws.1 and 2 was burnt and that M.Os.1 to 3, burnt wall clock, burnt TV remote controller and ash respectively, were seized from the scene of occurrence. 9. P.Ws. 1 to 5 were examined to speak about the incident. P.Ws. 1 and 2 were not admittedly present at the time of the alleged incident. They were informed by P.Ws. 3 to 5 with regard to the accused setting fire to their house. Therefore, the evidence of P.Ws 1 and 2 is not of much helpful to the case of prosecution, as they came to know about the alleged incident through P.Ws.3 to 5. But, P.Ws. 3 to 5, who are said to be eye witnesses to the alleged incident, did not support the prosecution case and they have completely given a different version from that of their earlier statements recorded by the police. Therefore, the prosecution sought to cross-examine them after declaring them as hostile. Even after cross-examination, except marking Exs.P2 to P5, which are the statements of P.Ws.3 to 5 respectively recorded by the police during the course of investigation under Section 161 Cr.P.C, nothing has been elicited from them so as to connect the accused with the crime. P.W.6 is only a witness to the seizure of M.Os.1 to 3. Therefore, there is absolutely no evidence to show that the accused set fire to the house of P.Ws. 1 and 2. Hence, the trial Court rightly acquitted the accused. There are no substantial or compelling reasons calling for interference by this Court. 10. Accordingly, the Criminal Appeal is dismissed, at the stage of admission, confirming the judgment dated 15.09.2008 in Sessions Case No.330 of 2006 on the file of the Assistant Sessions Judge, Gudur. ______________ K.C.BHANU, J Dated 5th November, 2009 vrn