We have heard the learned Counsel for the parties and on appreciation of the rival submission, it appears from the material available on record that although the appellant is named in the F.I.R. among the 30 to 35 persons as alleged of commission of burning of the J.C.B. of the contractor, who are carrying out the road construction work in the area. The State has although made an objection by taking specific stand at paragraph No.7 of supporting the prosecution version by several persons i.e. Rohit Kumar, JCB driver, Manik Chand Yadav, contractor, Santosh Yadav, labour of Road Construction, Surendra Kumar Singh, Helper of JCB and Umesh Prajapati, Labour in Road Construction including the contractor but, as would appear from the case diary and after going through the statement of these persons whose reference has been made in paragraph No.7 of the counter-affidavit. None of them including the contractor whose J.C.B. machine has been said to be burnt has disclosed the name of the appellant. The appellant is having also not criminal antecedent as has been submitted on behalf of the appellant. The aforesaid fact has not been disputed regarding the criminal antecedent of the appellant on behalf of the State.
