P&H HC Upholds Brother’s Acquittal In Fodder-Fire Case, Citing 7-Day FIR Delay And First Complaint’s Omission Of Wife’s Eyewitness Claim

The appellant-complainant challenged the acquittal of respondent No. 1 of charges under Sections 435 and 436 IPC, with an alternative charge under Section 457 IPC, arising from a fire at the complainant’s house.

The prosecution alleged that the accused set fire to fodder and household articles; the complainant’s wife, PW1, claimed to have witnessed the incident.

The trial court acquitted the accused, citing, among other matters, delay in lodging the FIR, the omission of the alleged eyewitness account from the initial complaint, the parties’ prior enmity, the absence of independent witnesses, and the FSL report’s failure to detect an inflammable substance.

The complainant appealed against that acquittal.

Sections 435 and 436 IPC concern mischief by fire or explosive substance causing specified damage, including damage to a building; Section 457 IPC concerns lurking house-trespass or house-breaking by night.

The prosecution must prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt, and reasonable doubt requires acquittal.

An appellate court may review and reappreciate evidence in an appeal against acquittal, but the acquitted accused benefits from a reinforced presumption of innocence; where two reasonable views are possible, the acquittal should not be disturbed (*Chandrappa v. State of Karnataka*, as quoted at para. 28; *Raj Pal Singh v. Rajveer*, 2026(1) RCR (Criminal) 177, para. 28).

Evidence of an interested or related witness is not to be rejected merely for that reason, but must be carefully scrutinised (*Masalti v. State of Uttar Pradesh* and *Bhaskarrao v. State of Maharashtra*, quoted at para. 20).

The judgment also referred to *Talari Naresh v. State of Telangana*, 2026 SCC OnLine 852, on assessing evidence from interested witnesses.

The Court found that PW1’s claim to have witnessed the fire was absent from the complainant’s initial complaint, despite the complainant apparently knowing of it, and that the supplementary statement said to disclose the claim was not proved.

Given the family’s prior disputes and cross-cases, this omission weakened PW1’s reliability; PW2’s account of what PW1 told him was hearsay and did not independently corroborate the allegation.

The absence of examined neighbours, the lack of recorded details of persons whom police said they had approached, the unexplained delay in registering the FIR, and the FSL report’s failure to detect an inflammable substance further undermined the prosecution case.

In those circumstances, the Court held that the evidence did not establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt and that the trial court’s acquittal did not warrant interference under the principles governing appeals against acquittal.