IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU CRL.A.NO.226 OF 2010. Date:11.02.2010 Between:- The State of A.P., rep.by the Public Prosecutor, High Court of A.P., Hyderabad. ..Appellant/Petitioner And Valipi Sivaiah .. Respondent/Accused JUDGMENT:- This Criminal Appeal, under Section 378(1)&(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, (‘Cr.P.C.’, for brevity) is filed by the State against the judgment, dated 19.01.2009 made in S.C.No.41 of 2008 on the file of the Assistant Sessions Judge, Gudur whereunder and whereby, the sole respondent/accused was found not guilty for the offence punishable under Section 436 of Indian Penal Code (‘I.P.C.’ for brevity) and accordingly, acquitted. 2. The brief facts that are necessary for the disposal of the prosecution case may be stated as follows: On 22.05.2007, at about 11.30 a.m., the accused picked up a quarrel with his wife (P.W.1) on the pretext that her elder daughter married another person with love and therefore, his wife left the house to go to her relatives’ house. In the meanwhile, the accused picked up a match box and set fire to the thatched hut. The neighbours came there and tried to stop the fire. The fire service people came and controlled the fire. The police registered a case on the complaint given by P.W.1 and investigated and filed the charge sheet. 3. When a charge for the offence under Section 436 I.P.C. was framed, read over and explained to the accused in Telugu, he denied the offence, pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. 4. To substantiate its case, the prosecution examined P.Ws.1 to 4 and got marked Exs.P-1 to P-6. 5. After closure of the prosecution evidence, the accused was examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C. with reference to the incriminating circumstances appearing against him in the evidence of prosecution witnesses. He denied the same and no evidence was adduced on his behalf. 6. The trial Court, after considering the evidence on record, acquitted the accused as prosecution failed to establish the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt. Challenging the same, the present Criminal appeal is filed by the State. 7. Now the point for consideration is: “Whether the prosecution proved its case beyond all reasonable doubt against the accused for the offence punishable under Section 436 I.P.C. and whether the judgment of the trial Court is correct, legal and proper?” 8. Heard the learned counsel representing the learned Public Prosecutor. 9. The evidence of P.W.4, who is Head Constable, coupled with Ex.P-6-observation report, would clearly go to show that the hut of P.W.1 was burnt to ashes. Even the accused is not denying or disputing about the burning of the hut. The question is who set fire to the hut. P.Ws.1 to 3 were examined by the prosecution. They have given a complete go-by to their earlier version made to the police. Therefore, they were declared hostile by the prosecution. Except marking Exs.P-2 to P-4, which are the statements of P.Ws.1 to 3 respectively, under Section 161 Cr.P.C., nothing has been elicited to connect the accused with the alleged offence. There cannot be any dispute that the statements recorded by the police during the course of investigation under Section 161(3) of Cr.P.C. cannot be used for any other purpose except for contradicting the witnesses. As there was no legal evidence to show that the accused set fire to the hut, the trial Court rightly acquitted the accused. Therefore, there are no grounds to interfere with the judgment of the trial Court. The appeal is devoid of merits and is accordingly, liable to be dismissed. 10. Accordingly, the Criminal Appeal is dismissed at the stage of admission confirming Judgment, dated 19.01.2009 made in S.C.No.41 of 2008 on the file of the Assistant Sessions Judge, Gudur. _​_______________ JUSTICE K.C.BHANU 11th February, 2010 AMD