Case Note & Summary
The appellant, Suyash Rajiv Mulukh, was convicted by the Additional Sessions Judge, Jalgaon, for offences under Sections 427 (mischief causing damage) and 436 (mischief by fire with intent to destroy a house) of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, and sentenced to five years' rigorous imprisonment and a fine. The case arose from an incident on March 3, 2009, when the complainant Vasant Talwekar alleged that the appellant set fire to his house door at 2 a.m. The prosecution claimed that the appellant, posing as a film producer, had offered a role to the complainant's daughter Sarita (PW3), but later threatened her when she refused. The complainant stated he saw the appellant running from the scene. However, the High Court found serious inconsistencies: the complainant did not name the appellant in the FIR; the daughters gave conflicting accounts about the appellant's identity and the threat; and the evidence of the panch witnesses was unreliable. The court held that the prosecution failed to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt, and thus allowed the appeal, setting aside the conviction and acquitting the appellant.
Headnote
A) Criminal Law - Arson and Mischief - Sections 427, 436 Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Conviction based on unreliable testimony - The appellant was convicted for setting fire to the complainant's house. The court found material inconsistencies in the testimonies of prosecution witnesses, including the complainant and his daughters, regarding the identification of the accused and the sequence of events. The court held that the prosecution failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt, and the appellant was entitled to acquittal. (Paras 1-10) B) Evidence Law - Credibility of Witnesses - Inconsistencies - The court noted that the complainant (PW2) did not name the accused in the FIR, and the daughters (PW3 and PW4) gave contradictory versions about the accused's identity and the threat. The court held that such inconsistencies render the prosecution case doubtful. (Paras 5-9)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the prosecution proved the guilt of the appellant beyond reasonable doubt for offences under Sections 427 and 436 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.
Final Decision
Appeal allowed. Conviction and sentence set aside. Appellant acquitted of all charges. Fine, if paid, to be refunded.
Law Points
- Conviction requires proof beyond reasonable doubt
- Inconsistencies in witness testimony lead to acquittal
- Benefit of doubt to accused
