JUDGMENT 1. - In this appeal, the acquittal of the respondents Bhanwarlal, Madanlal and Mangukhan for the offence under sections 436 and 327 I. P. C. has been challenged. All the three were tried by the Assistant Sessions Judge, Balotra, after the Munsif Magistrate, Balotra, committed them for trial in the Court of District and Sessions Judge, Balotra. The District and Sessions Judge, Balotra, transferred the case to the Assistant Sessions Judge. 2. A verbal report was filed at the police station, Balotra, on 27th December, 1971 by one Jagmal s/o Kanji Chaudhary. It was alleged that on that day at 9 P. M., he with Hanuman Purohit, Hemji and Sona Chaudhary were sitting in the court yard in front of his dhani. When they were taking tea and Hanuman was going to his field and on his way, he came to his dhani, then a jeep reached in front of his dhani from which all the three accused persons named above, came out. The accused Bhanwarlal than asked Jagmal as to why he has given statement against him in a case instituted by one Dana. Jagmal in reply stated that he has deposed whatever he had witnessed. Accused Bhanwarlal then coerced him to change this statement but Jagmal refused. All the three accused thereafter pushed the complainant on the ground and accused Bhanwarlal and Manghia obtained a thumb impression on a plain paper by force. It was further alleged that thereafter Bhanwarlal set fire to his jhumpa by a match stick and the accused persons left the place of occurrence by jeep. The complainant stated that he has suffered a loss of Rs. 500/-. 3. On the above report, a case was registered under sections 436 and 327 I. P. C. at P. S., Balotra and accused Bhanwarlal was arrested on 28th December, 1971. A promissory note of Rs. 2500/-and a receipt for the same amount was recovered. 4. Accused Bhanwarlal was charged for the offence under sections 436 and 327 I. P. C. and the two other accused were charged for the offence under sections 436 and 327/34 I.P.C. The accused pleaded not guilty. 5. The prosecution examined 9 witnesses and thereafter the accused were examined in order to enable them to explain the incriminating circumstances against them. The accused denied the allegations and have examined D. W. 1 Jasraj and D. W. 2 Bhanwarlal. 5. The prosecution examined 9 witnesses and thereafter the accused were examined in order to enable them to explain the incriminating circumstances against them. The accused denied the allegations and have examined D. W. 1 Jasraj and D. W. 2 Bhanwarlal. D. W. 2 Bhanwarlal accused examined himself in the defence under section 342 A Cr. P. C. 6. In support of the prosecution case, P. W. 1 Tulchharam, P. W. 2 Pannalal, P. W. 3 Jagmal, P. W. 4 Sona, P. W. 5 Hanuman, P. W. 6 Prabhudan, P. W. 7 Hema, P. W. 8 Jairoop and P. W. 9 Ganeshram, were examined by the prosecution. 7. After hearing the arguments, the learned Assistant Sessions Judge had divided the case into three parts and said three important questions required to be answered. According to him, the first was whether P. W. 3 Jagmal ever gave a statement in favour of Dana and against accused Bhanwarlal, which was alleged to be the motive in the present case. The second was, whether accused Bhanwarlal with the assistance of other two accused persons obtained a thumb impression on a plain sheet of paper. The third was whether accused Bhanwarlal set fire to the jumpa of Jagmal complainant. 8. After a thorough, detailed and comprehensive discussion of the entire evidence, the learned Assistant Sessions Judge held that in so far as the first two questions were concerned, the prosecution has miserably failed to prove that thumb impression of the complainant was taken forcibly on the plain paper as alleged and that the complainant gave a statement against the accused and in favour of Dana. In support of the third point whether Bhanwarlal accused set fire to the jhumpa of the complainant, the Assistant Sessions Judge found the story is not free from doubt and, therefore, held that the prosecution has not proved the case beyond doubt in this respect. 9. Mr. Bhati, the learned Public Prosecutor in this appeal has challenged the finding of the trial court. It was urged that the mere fact that there was discrepancy about the plain paper and printed paper, the prosecution evidence should not have been discarded. 9. Mr. Bhati, the learned Public Prosecutor in this appeal has challenged the finding of the trial court. It was urged that the mere fact that there was discrepancy about the plain paper and printed paper, the prosecution evidence should not have been discarded. It was also argued that although it is true that the prosecution case was that forcible thumb impression had been taken only at one place by the accused from the complainant, yet even if it is true that there were two thumb impressions, the prosecution story need not be discarded. 10. Mr. Singhi, counsel for the accused submitted that serious infirmities in the prosecution case have been rightly highlighted by the trial court. Even Mr. Bhati could not challenge the findings on first two points and virtually accepted them. 11. We have carefully considered the submissions of Mr. Bhati and Mr. Singhi and have examined the record of the case thoroughly. On a thoughtful consideration of the entire material, we are not persuaded to take a different view from the one taken by the trial court in this case. 12. Apart from the fact that we are in agreement with the reasons given by the Assistant Sessions Judge, for discarding the prosecution evidence, we further find that the best evidence to prove that the complainant Jagmal has given a statement against the accused Bhanwarlal and in favour of Dana, would have been the statement of Jagmal either in original by summoning the record of that case or by obtaining a certified copy. It is surprising why this had not been done and there is no explanation even now why the prosecution could not produce the original statement of P. W. 3. Jagmal himself has stated that he has not given statement in favour of Dana but Dana simply mentioned his name in the list of the witnesses. In view of this, it is not necessary for us to deal in details the evidence of P. W. 3 Jagmal in this respect and we hold that the findings of the trial court on this point is just and proper and it is on proper consideration of the evidence. 13. The second and more important question, which was considered by the Assistant Sessions Judge related to the allegation that Jagmal was forced to put the thumb impression on a plain piece of paper. 13. The second and more important question, which was considered by the Assistant Sessions Judge related to the allegation that Jagmal was forced to put the thumb impression on a plain piece of paper. According to the discussion of the evidence by the Assistant Sessions Judge, Ex. D 1 and Ex. D2 are promissory notes and receipts recovered from the possession of accused Bhanwarlal on 28th December, 1971. These documents contain two thumb impressions. P. W. 3 Jagmal persisted on this version that only one thumb impression was obtained even in the court. He went to the extent of saying that during his whole life, accused Bhanwarlal obtained only one thumb impression on a plain sheet of paper. Nothing has been shown or suggested either in the trial court or before this Court how a promissory note having two thumb impressions of Jagmal, which was recovered immediately from the accused on 28th December, 1971 came into existence. 14. We are prepared to give some concession and ignore the discrepancy between the plain paper and printed paper because the complainant is from the village and, he must not have been keen in observation if the occurrence at all took place, But even if it is ignored and further important feature of the case in favour of the accused Bhanwarlal is two thumb impressions of the complainant. Apart from the fact there are discrepancies in the statement of P. W. 4 Sona and P. W. 3 Jagmal, which have been rightly pointed out by the Assistant Sessions Judge, there is additional reasons for rejecting the prosecution story and which has been rightly pointed out by the Assistant Sessions Judge. The defence has examined Shri Jasraj, Advocate of Balotra. Shri Jasraj on the basis of the promissory note and the receipt drafted an application under section 6 of the Rajasthan Relief of Agricultural Indebtedness Act, 1957 on 24th December, 1971, which is alleged to be the date of the occurrence. Thereafter this document was taken back by the accused Bhanwarlal because there was a talk of compromise- The existence of this document Ex. D1 and Ex. D2 bearing the thumb impression of the complainant are earlier to the date of occurrence, completely smashes the prosecution case. We are, therefore, of the opinion that the acquittal of all the three accused for the offence under section 327 I. P. C. is fully justified. 15. D1 and Ex. D2 bearing the thumb impression of the complainant are earlier to the date of occurrence, completely smashes the prosecution case. We are, therefore, of the opinion that the acquittal of all the three accused for the offence under section 327 I. P. C. is fully justified. 15. The next question is whether Bhanwarlal accused put fire to the hut of the complainant. 16. We are of the opinion that even on this point, the reasons given by the Assistant Sessions Judge to hold that the story of the prosecution is highly doubtful, are fully justified and they are based on cogent grounds. Even otherwise, it would be highly improbable that if the accused wanted to set fire to the hut by giving threat for the purpose of getting thumb impression, where was the point in putting fire after they were successful in getting the thumb impression by force. 17. The Assistant Sessions Judge has rightly pointed out that there were large number of persons present on the spot and a good number of them were members of the family of the complainant and weapons with which they could have defended themselves, were lying nearby. In such circumstances, the view expressed by the Assistant Sessions Judge that Bhanwarlal would not be able to put fire to the hut, appears to be correct. Moreover the story that the complainant party could not extinguish the fire, is difficult to be believed. We, therefore, feel that the reasons given by the Assistant Sessions Judge are fully justified in this respect. Agreeing with him, we hold that on this point, the acquittal of the accused Bhanwarlal under section 436 I. P. C. and of the other two accused under section 436 read with section 34 I. P. C. is fully justified and calls for no interference in this appeal against the acquittal. 18. The result of the above discussion is that this appeal fails and is hereby dismissed and the acquittal of all the accused-respondents is up-held.State appeal dismissed. *******