Convictions for arson, attempted murder and assault set aside for lack of reliable evidence.

The appeal challenged the appellants’ convictions by the Additional Sessions Judge, Darjeeling, for offences under Sections 436 and 307 read with Section 34 IPC; appellant No. 1 was also convicted under Section 354 IPC.

The prosecution alleged that appellant No. 1 had earlier misbehaved with and threatened the complainant, and that both appellants later set fire to the complainant’s shop or house and attempted to kill members of her family.

The prosecution relied principally on the complainant’s testimony and CCTV footage seized during the investigation.

Other witnesses either did not see the fire being set or testified to events surrounding the fire; no weapon or injury report was produced.

The trial court imposed custodial sentences, which the appellants challenged on appeal.

1. Whether the evidence established appellant No. 1’s guilt under Section 354 IPC, given the inconsistencies between the complainant’s written complaint, her Section 164 CrPC statement, and her trial testimony.

2. Whether the evidence, including the CCTV footage and witness testimony, proved beyond reasonable doubt that either appellant committed the offence under Section 436 IPC.

3. Whether the evidence established the offence under Section 307 IPC against the appellants, including the alleged attempt to harm the complainant or her family.

The Court considered Sections 354, 436, 307 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code, which respectively concern assault or criminal force to a woman with intent to outrage her modesty, mischief by fire or explosive substance with intent to destroy a house or similar property, attempt to murder, and joint liability for acts done in furtherance of common intention.

It also referred to Sections 164 and 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure in assessing the complainant’s prior statement and the accused persons’ examination.

The prosecution was required to establish the charged offences through reliable evidence; material inconsistencies, lack of corroboration, and absence of evidence connecting the accused to the alleged acts could prevent a finding of guilt.

No precedent was cited in the judgment.

For the Section 354 charge, the Court found material differences among the complainant’s complaint, her Section 164 statement, and her trial evidence, with no corroborating witness; it therefore considered her evidence insufficient to prove the charge.

On arson, the CCTV footage did not show either appellant setting the fire, and no witness testified to seeing the act; evidence that the property had burned did not establish the appellants’ responsibility.

The Section 307 allegation was likewise unsupported: the complainant’s accounts were inconsistent, the father’s evidence indicated that he had restrained and taken appellant No. 1 home, and the prosecution produced no injury report, evidence of injury, or seized weapon.

In view of these evidentiary deficiencies, the Court held that the prosecution had failed to prove the charges.

If already on bail, their bail bonds were to be discharged or cancelled; any release from custody was subject to execution of a bond under Section 437A CrPC, to remain in force for six months.