STATE OF ORISSA Vs. SUSANTA KUMAR ROUT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The State in this appeal has called in question the order of acquittal passed by the learned Assistant Sessions Judge, Kendrapra in S. T. Case No. 141/10 of 1996 acquitting the respondent of the charge under sections 436/307, I.P.C.

(2.) The case of the prosecution is that on 14.7.1995 around 1.30 a.m. when the informant P.W. 3 was sleeping in her house, the respondent set fire to the said house and closed the door from outside. Hearing the sound of falling of some footsteps. P.W. 1 through the door planks saw the respondent going away. He was then asked to open the door. It is stated that at the point of time, the respondent abused her in obscene language and fled away. On hearing the hullah, an old woman staying near the house came and opened the door. The villager then came to extinguish the fire. On 14.7.1995 at 11 a.m., P.W. 1 lodged an F.I.R. at the police station which necessitated the registration of the case and the investigation commenced. On closure of evidence, the charge-sheet being submitted, the respondent faced the trial for the above offences.

(3.) Prosecution in order to bring home the charge against the respondent has examined ten witnesses out of whom P.W. 3 is the informant, P.Ws. 1 and 2 are the seizure witnesses. P.Ws. 4, 5 and 7 are co-villagers and P.W. 6 is the daughter of P.W. 3 From the side of the prosecution, the F.I.R. has been admitted in evidence and marked as Ext. 2 and Ext. 1 is the seizure list proved from the side of the prosecution. The respondent took the plea of complete denial and false implication in order to avoid the repayment of a friendly loan advanced by the respondent to the informant.