Short Note : This appeal is directed against the conviction of the appellant for the offence punishable under section 436 of the Indian Penal Code i.e. mischief by setting fire to a dwelling house and sentence to two years' rigorous imprisonment imposed by the learned Sessions Judge, Bhopal. Held : It is apparent that the prosecution purposely produced Laxminarayan as a false witness for procuring a conviction by making him to State that he saw the accused-appellant running away with a bottle in his hand. I would like to observe that it is no use to bring up a false case to a Court or bolstering up a case which the prosecution imagines to be true with untruthful witnesses. When the Court is satisfied that the prosecution has purposely produced a false witness, it definitely affects the mind of the Court as to the rest of the evidence too. The police investigator has to function with stark honesty. It is not the duty of the investigator to create evidence. He must only collect evidence. 2. However, the mere fact that a false witness was produced by the prosecution will not in itself be a ground to discard the testimony of the other witnesses. But at the same time, caution will have to be exercised in accepting the other evidence for basing a conviction on the same. 3. It would be significant to mention that according to the prosecution witnesses, various persons residing in the neighbourhood had assembled on the spot and extinguished the fire. No such person came up to support the story of the prosecution that the accused was seen coming out of the house with a bottle in his hand and that Smt. Sushilabai was pointing out towards him as the person who had set fire. Pyarelal was examined by the investigating Officer on 25-1-76 i.e. after 3 days. The investigating Officer Shri R.S. Bhojak (P.W.12) has admitted that when he reached the spot, various persons of the neighbourhood were present, but he did not examine any of them. He has further stated that he did not effect any seizure of the burnt articles on that day. It would be significant to mention that certain articles were seized after about 7 days i.e. on 1st of February, 1976. 4. He has further stated that he did not effect any seizure of the burnt articles on that day. It would be significant to mention that certain articles were seized after about 7 days i.e. on 1st of February, 1976. 4. After rejecting the testimony of Pyarelal and Laxminarayan, the only witness Smt. Sushilabai, the complainant herself remains to implicate the accused. In the background of the various undisputed circumstances, as stated in para 5 above, it would not be safe to rely on the testimony of Smt. Sushilabai alone. The story of the prosecution has become doubtful in view of the circumstances stated in para 5 above and the defence of the accused that by putting fire to a few articles, some of which belonged to the accused himself, a false case was put up against him with the ulterior motive for getting the room vacated which was let out to him, appears to be highly probable. The learned Sessions Judge totally ignored the material circumstances stated above while appreciating the evidence. 5. In my opinion, the prosecution could not establish the case beyond doubt. Appeal allowed.