STATE OF H.P. Vs. SH. BALAK RAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE Respondent, Balak Ram was tried for offence under Section 436 of the Indian Penal Code on the allegation that he has set the house of father of PW -1, Sh. Raju on fire. The incident was of 1.3.1995 but the First Information Report was lodged on 11.5.1995. After trial, the learned Trial Court acquitted the accused on the ground that the witnesses were procured and that there was an unexplained delay in lodging the First Information Report.

(2.) WE heard learned Additional Advocate General for the State. He emphasizes that the offence was proved beyond reasonable doubt from the statements of Sh. Bala Ram, PW -2, Sh. Chet Singh, PW -10 that the accused has made an extra judicial confession before them. We can not agree with the submissions. In the complaint Ex. P -A, it was mentioned that the accused Balak Ram had confessed before Sh. Bala Ram, who has examined as PW -2 and Sh. Chet Singh, PW -10 that it was he (accused) who set the house of Sh. Raju on fire. The statement of PW -2 Sh. Bala Ram is to the effect that when he was returning from Matiana after making some purchase etc., the accused met him on the way and told him that he set the house of Sh. Sadh Ram on fire. Sh. Sadh Ram is the father of the complainant. At that time, the accused was in a drunken state. PW -10 Sh. Chet Ram was purportedly following him. However, when his (Chet Ram) statement is considered, he stated that Sh. Bala Ram inquired from the accused as to what the school children were saying, whereupon the accused replied that they were saying that he has burnt the house of Sh. Sadh Ram, but he did care for the same. Both the statements are at variance and did not concord from the record. This cannot be treated as an extra judicial confession. More important, the learned Sessions Judge holds in paragraph 17 of the judgment as under: