have not supported the prosecution case rather they deposed that the appellants had not set the jhugies on fire; that no reliance should be placed on the depositions of Tarsem (PW3), Manohar (PW4), Kulwant (PW5) and Sewak Singh (PW6) since their depositions are highly contradictory; that the ownership of the damaged huts could not be established; it could not be proved that those were dwelling huts and were being used for the custody of the property and, thus, the ingredients of Section 436, IPC, were not attracted; that the ingredients of Sections 427 and 429, IPC, could not be substantiated from the evidence available on record; that names of Mithu and Banarsi appellants were not mentioned in the FIR; and that no identification parade was conducted, therefore, on the strength of the above submissions, a prayer has been made for acceptance of the appeals and acquittal of the appellants. 7. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State has argued that from the depositions of the prosecution witnesses the allegations levelled against the appellants are fully proved and the learned Trial Court has rightly held all the appellants guilty for the commission of offences punishable under Sections 427, 429 and 436 read with 149, IPC, that the occurrence alleged to have taken place at around 9:00 p.m. and within two hours the matter was reported to the police and even the special report was delivered to the learned Area Judicial Magistrate within 3-4 hours of the occurrence and, as such, the facts mentioned therein
