NOORA Vs. STATE OF M.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE learned trial Judge had placed reliance on the version of Bhukhan (P.W.3) - - wife of Parghaniya, but the version of this witness also does not conclusively establish that it was the appellant Noora and Meera who had set fire to her house. This witness Bhukhan had stated in her examination -in -chief that Meera and others had set fire to her house, but, during her cross - examination, her version was that it was Noora who had set fire to the house and that, she had given incorrect version about Meera. According to the version of Bhukhan (P.W.3), Kallu had given the match -box to Noora. This witness Bhukhan was confronted with portion marked B to B of her diary statement (Ex.D -3), but she denied having given the said statement to the police, according to which, Noora Musalman had taken out the match -box from his own pocket and had lit the same and had set fire to the Chhani (roof) of her house. Thus, implicit reliance cannot be placed on the version of Bhukhan, because, she had given contradictory versions regarding the person or persons having set fire to her house.

(2.) JUGRU (P.W.4) had himself not seen as to who had set fire to the house of the complainant and, from his own version, it is clear that he was in his house when he heard the noise about the fire. In cross -examination of this witness, this witness had clearly stated that he did not know as to who has set the house on fire. Thus, the version of this witness Jugru (P.WA) also does not help the prosecution case regarding the appellants having set fire to the house of the complainant Parghaniya.

(3.) THERE is, therefore, no cogent, reliable and trustworthy evidence from which it could be safely said beyond all reasonable and probable doubt that it was the appellants Noora and Meera alone who had set fire to the house of the complainant Paraghaniya. Besides this, from the prosecution evidence on record, it is clear that there was a crowd of about 100 persons and that, it was Diwali day, but, surprisingly enough, no independent witness was examined in the case to prove as to which accused person or persons had actually set fire to the house of the complainant. Independent evidence regarding the incident was all the more necessary -looking to the fact that the relations between the parties were strained arid proceedings under section 107/116 of Cr.P.C. were initiated against both the parties as per Ex.P -13 and Ex. P -14 on record.