JUDGMENT - S.M. HAJARNAVIS, J.:---This is an appeal against the judgment delivered by the Sessions Judge Nasik, convicting the appellant under sections 307 and 435 of the Indian Penal Code and sentencing him to suffer rigorous imprisonment for two years and to pay a fine Rs. 1000/- and in default of payment of fine to suffer rigorous imprisonment for six months on each count. The substantive sentences were directed to run concurrently. Dwarkanath Joshi (P.W. 2) owned a taxi which he plied by engaging two drivers, viz. (1) Chandrakant Gojare (P.W. 1) and (2) Narayan Kalange (P.W. 3). Each of these two drivers plied the taxi on hire for one full day by rotation. On 12th November, 1972, Chandrakant Gojare took charge of the taxi at about 8 a.m. and he was to remain in possession of the taxi till 8 a.m. on 13th November, 1972. At about mid-night he parked the taxi at Bhadrakali Taxi Stand at Nasik and he was waiting for the passengers. The appellant-original accused No. 1 Ramesh Shelar, and original accused No. 3 Ganpat Bhaurao Joshi who were friends, approached Chandrakant and asked Chandrakant to give him Rs. 2/- or liquor. Chandrakant told them that he had neither money nor liquor. The appellant and Ganpat accused No. 3 then dragged Chandrakant out of the taxi and gave him first blows. They then forced him to sit on the rear seat of the taxi. Both of them sat on the seat of the taxi on his either side. The appellant then kicked the petrol can which was kept at the back of the front seat near the leg space of the rear seat. The petrol from the can was split in the taxi. It may be mentioned that the glass-panes of all the doors were pulled up earlier by Chandrakant. The rear right side door of the taxi had no handle from inside for opening the door. The rear door on the left side alone could be opened by the inside handle. The accused got out from the left door and then appellant lighted a match stick and threw it inside the taxi and closed the door of the taxi. The petrol caught fire. Chandrakant could not escape from the left side door as both the accused were standing near the door. The accused got out from the left door and then appellant lighted a match stick and threw it inside the taxi and closed the door of the taxi. The petrol caught fire. Chandrakant could not escape from the left side door as both the accused were standing near the door. He, therefore, got out from the right side of the door by breaking open that glass of the door. He then raised an alarm. People came there and extinguished the fire. Accused also helped them in extinguishing the fire. The appellant threatened Chandrakant and warned him not to make a report about it. Chandrakant then went to Makaji Chivadewale and applied medicine to the injuries that were sustained by him. Chandrakant and the two accused then slept near the Tonga stand which was a few feet away from the taxi stand. It may be mentioned that upholstry of the taxi was practically burnt causing damage of about Rs. 2,000/-. Dwarkanath Joshi (P.W. 2) came to the Taxi Stand at about 9 a.m. and saw the burnt taxi. Chandrakant told him all that had happened at the night. Both of them thereafter went to the Police Station and lodged a report (Ex. 6) at about 11.15 a.m. In that report he had implicated the father of the appellant also as a person who had come to the taxi stand and threatened Chandrakant not to make any report. The offence was registered by the police against the appellant, appellants father and Ganpat. The police draw up the panchnama (Ex. 13) of the scene of offence. After completing the investigation, they filed a charge-sheet against the accused under sections 307 and 435 read with section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. After going through the papers, the learned Magistrate, committed the accused to face their trial before the Sessions Court, Nasik. At the trial, the Sessions Judge framed charges under section 307 read with section 34 of the Indian Penal Code and under section 435 read with section 34 of the Indian Penal Code against all the accused. He also framed charges against accused No. 1 Ramesh for an offence punishable under sections 307 and 435 of the Indian Penal Code. The charges were read over the explained to the accused. The accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to tried. He also framed charges against accused No. 1 Ramesh for an offence punishable under sections 307 and 435 of the Indian Penal Code. The charges were read over the explained to the accused. The accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to tried. The prosecution then led evidence of nine witnesses in support of its case out of which three were supposed to be the eye-witnesses. They are : (1) victim Chandrakant (P.W. 1), (2) Narayan Kalange (P.W. 3) and (3) Chandrakants friend Arun Dhondage (P.W. 4). Chandrakant deposed to all the facts stated above. Narayan Kalange (P.W. 3) deposed that Chandrakant was in charge of the taxi for that day from 8 a.m. in the morning till 8 a.m. of next day. He stated that he had gone to see a picture at night and on his way back he came to the taxi stand where he saw the incident. This witness has been rightly disbelieved by the learned Sessions Judge and it is, therefore, not necessary to refer to his evidence at all. The other witness Arun Dhondage (P.W. 4) was declared hostile and was cross examined by the prosecution and, therefore, his evidence is also discarded by the learned Sessions Judge. The taxi owner Dwarkanath Joshi (P.W. 2) has been examined. He stated that he had gone to the taxi stand the next day in the morning at 9 a.m. and he saw that the taxi was burnt. He asked Chandrakant how the taxi was burnt and it was after Chandrakant had informed of the incident that he took Chandrakant to the Police Station and lodged a report. His evidence is also, therefore of little assistance to the prosecution. The other witnesses are panch witnesses and the police witnesses. Therefore, their evidence is also of very little assistance to the prosecution for the purpose of finding out how the taxi had caught fire and who was responsible for it. The learned Judge has observed that there was no dispute that the taxi was burnt on that night and the damage was caused to the taxi. He then observed that nothing had been brought out by the accused why Chandrakant (P.W. 1) should falsely implicate the accused in this case. He held that the accused No. 2 had not taken part in the burning of the taxi or beating the complainant (P.W. 1). He then observed that nothing had been brought out by the accused why Chandrakant (P.W. 1) should falsely implicate the accused in this case. He held that the accused No. 2 had not taken part in the burning of the taxi or beating the complainant (P.W. 1). He acquitted accused No. 3 of all the charges that were framed but he convicted him under section 323 of the Indian Penal Code for causing simple hurt to the complainant. He however, held that it was accused No. 1 appellant in this case, who had set the taxi on fire while the complainant was sitting in the taxi. He held that the offences punishable under sections 435 and 307 of the Indian Penal Code were brought home against the appellant. He, therefore, convicted and sentenced him under sections 307 and 435 of the Indian Penal Code, to suffer rigorous imprisonment for two years and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/- and in default of payment of fine to suffer rigorous imprisonment for six months on each of the counts. The substantive sentences were directed to run concurrently. He also directed that if the fine was paid, Rs. 1000/- should be paid to the owner of the taxi by way of compensation. It is against this Judgement that the present appeal has been filed. Mr. Parkar, learned Counsel for the appellant, urged that the learned Sessions Judge has committed an error in accepting the testimony of Chandrakant (P.W. 1). He submitted that his testimony bristles with contradictions and the story that he gave is full of impossibilities. The learned Sessions Judge has committed an error in accepting is testimony. He took me through the entire evidence of the case but as I have stated earlier, the other evidence is immaterial and, therefore, it is only necessary to examine the evidence of Chandrakant (P.W. 1). Chandrakant (P.W. 1) has stated the taxi bearing registration No. MHS 1581 belonged to Dwarkanath Joshi, and that it was plied on hire by two taxi drivers viz. himself and Narayan Kalange (P.W. 3). They have been plying this vehicle on alternate days for 24 hours. He stated that on 12th November, 1972, he took the taxi in his charge from Narayan at 8 a.m. and had parked it at Bhadrakali taxi stand at midnight of 12th and 13th November, 1972. While he was sitting there, accused Nos. himself and Narayan Kalange (P.W. 3). They have been plying this vehicle on alternate days for 24 hours. He stated that on 12th November, 1972, he took the taxi in his charge from Narayan at 8 a.m. and had parked it at Bhadrakali taxi stand at midnight of 12th and 13th November, 1972. While he was sitting there, accused Nos. 1 and 3 came near him and they asked him to give either liquor or Rs. 2/-. He told them that he had neither the money nor liquor. The accused then dragged him outside the taxi. The glasspanes of the door of the taxi were already pulled up by him. They dragged him out of the taxi and gave him first blows. They then made him to sit on the rear seat of the taxi and both of them sat on his either side on the seat itself. A petrol can full of petrol was placed near the leg space of the rear seat just at the back of the front seat. The accused No. 1 then kicked that tin. The petrol from the can spilt. Both the accused got out of the taxi and accused No. 1 then ignited a match-stick and threw it in the taxi and closed the door of the taxi. The witness broke open the glass of the other side of the door and got out of the taxi. He raised shout and many persons gathered there and with their help he extinguished the fire. The accused also helped him in extinguishing the fire. The accused No. 1 suggested that the fire must have taken place because of short circuit. Chandrakant then went to Makaji Chivadewale and applied ointment. The accused threatened him not to disclose that he had ignited the petrol in the taxi. The witness and the accused then went to the tonga stand and they slept there. Both the accused went away at about 5.30 a.m. The witness went to the taxi stand and waited there. Dwarkanath Joshi (P.W. 2), the owner of the taxi, came at about 9.30 a.m. and he asked how the fire had taken place. He informed him that it was the accused who had spilt petrol in the taxi and set it on fire. They went to the Police Station and lodged a complaint. Dwarkanath Joshi (P.W. 2), the owner of the taxi, came at about 9.30 a.m. and he asked how the fire had taken place. He informed him that it was the accused who had spilt petrol in the taxi and set it on fire. They went to the Police Station and lodged a complaint. In his cross-examination he stated that 15 or 20 feet away from the taxi stand there is State Transport Bus Stand and that the workers of the State Transport Corporation were present there throughout the day and night. He admitted that three or four policemen were also posted there. He did not go to the Bus Stand to inform them. He admitted that Trimbak Police Chowki was about half a furlong away from there and even then he did not go there. On the top of it, he further admitted that half-an-hour after the fire had been extinguished, a police van came there. Four or five policemen came near his taxi to see what had happened. He told the policemen that he was driver of taxi which had caught fire. He was asked by the policemen how that taxi had caught fire but he had not stated to the police that the accused was responsible for the fire. He stated that the policemen were at the taxi stand for about an hour. The learned Judge held that the complainant did not inform the police nor went to the Police Station because of the threat that was administered by accused No. 1. in my opinion, the learned Judge has committed an error in accepting this explanation from the witness. The policemen had arrived soon after the fire. There were, on his own admission, four or five policemen in that van. If he could report about the accused the next day, nothing prevented him from reporting those policemen or going with the policemen to the Police Station. Not only this man did not report to the police but slept with the accused near the tonga stand. In my opinion, his evidence cannot be accepted and no reliance can be placed on such a witness. Then again, on his own showing, this witness was sitting in the taxi in which the petrol was spilt and was ignited. Under these circumstances, his clothes should have been burnt and he should have suffered severe burn injuries. In my opinion, his evidence cannot be accepted and no reliance can be placed on such a witness. Then again, on his own showing, this witness was sitting in the taxi in which the petrol was spilt and was ignited. Under these circumstances, his clothes should have been burnt and he should have suffered severe burn injuries. He was not required to go to the hospital at all and the next day he was found to have two or three minor blisters by fire. His clothes have not been seized to show the extent of the burns that he has suffered. Under these circumstances, the evidence of this witness ought not to have been accepted by the learned Judge. If his evidence is discarded then there is no other evidence to bring home the offence against the accused. That being so, the conviction of the accused-appellant is totally unwarranted. In the result, the appeal is allowed and the conviction and sentence imposed by the learned Judge are set aside. Fine, if paid, be refunded to the accused. Bail bond stands cancelled. -----