Inconsistency in interested witnesses’ testimonies regarding identification and previous enmity justifies acquittal in arson cases.

The appellant/complainant alleged that on the night of the incident, respondents No. 2 and 3 set fire to 42 bundles of pigeon peas (arhar) stored in front of her house due to a long-standing land dispute

The Trial Court (First Additional Sessions Judge, Mauganj) acquitted the accused of charges under Sections 435 and 435/34 of the IPC on 10.12.2019

The complainant appealed this acquittal, asserting that the eyewitness testimonies of herself (PW-4) and her children (PW-5, PW-6) were sufficient for conviction

Independent witnesses (PW-1, PW-2, PW-3) turned hostile, and the defense suggested the fire was either accidental or the result of a false FIR to counter a previous criminal case filed by the accused against the complainant's family

1. Whether the Trial Court’s order of acquittal was perverse or based on a misreading of evidence regarding the identification of the accused at the scene

2. Whether the appellate court can interfere with an acquittal when two reasonable views are possible based on the evidence

Section 372 of the CrPC regarding the victim's right to appeal an acquittal

Section 435 of the IPC (mischief by fire)

Principles of appellate review established in H.D. Sundara v. State of Karnataka (2023), which dictates that an acquittal should not be overturned if the trial court’s view is "possible"

Mallappa v. State of Karnataka (2024), emphasizing that the presumption of innocence is reinforced by an acquittal and interference is only permitted in cases of patent perversity or illegality

While PW-4 claimed she was alone in the house, her children (PW-5 and PW-6) claimed they were also present and witnessed the event

There were contradictions regarding the direction in which the accused allegedly fled (North vs. East) and whether all accused or only one actually set the fire

The court noted it was "unnatural" for an arsonist to wait for occupants to wake up before fleeing

Independent witnesses suggested the burnt crop might have belonged to the accused themselves and hinted at a motive for false implication due to prior litigation

The non-examination of the Investigating Officer was also noted as a gap in the prosecution's case

The court determined that the Trial Court's view was plausible and did not suffer from perversity

The High Court dismissed the appeal and affirmed the judgment of acquittal