STATE OF ORISSA Vs. KAMADEV MAJHI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE State of Orissa has preferred this appeal against tile judgment of the Assistant Sessions' Judge, Phulbani camp Balliguda, acquitting the accused -Respondent of the charge under Section 436, IPC.

(2.) THE gist of the prosecution case is that on 14 -3 -1983 at about 7 P.M. at village Kodapana (within Belghar P.S. in phulbani district), accused Kamdev Majhi, in a state of intoxication, set fire to the house of one Madhab Majhi and when the informant and the others of the village were engaged in putting out the fire of Madhab Majhi's house, the accused had set fire to the houses of the informant, Beda Majhi, Baldev Majhi and Tuakaladu Majhi also, as a result of which the said four houses were completely burnt and thereby the accused, rendered himself liable under Section 436, IPC.

(3.) THE trial Court found that the accused had set fire to the houses of Madhab and the informant as a result of which four house's of the villagers were gutted by fire, but all the same acquitted him of the charge under Section 436, I.P.C. by invoking the provisions of Section 85, IPC. The learned Standing Counsel contended that the trial Court acted illegally in acquitting the accused as the facts and circumstances of the case do not justify the giving of the benefit of the provisions of Section 85, I.P.C. to the accused. The learned Counsel for the Respondent contended that there is no reliable evidence to show that the accused had set fire to any of the houses in the village and on that score alone accused was entitled to an acquittal. So before considering the point whether the trial Court was justified in invoking the provisions of Section 85, I.P.C. in the facts of the present case, the evidence on record merits careful scrutiny to find out if the accused had set fire to the houses of Madhab and the informant, as alleged by the prosecution.