Short Note : 1. This appeal by the accused Pritamsingh and Daulatram is directed against their conviction and sentence of five years' rigorous imprisonment under section 436 of the Indian Penal Code. 2. Shrilal (P.W. 2) is a resident of village Barabad, police-station Andori in District Bhind In the village he owned a flour-mill which was housed in a Kuchcha building roof of which was thatched with grass. Originally, he was running it in partnership with the accused persons besides one Sardar. About three years or so before the occurrence in question dated 11-3-1973, however, be dissolved the partnership buying for himself the shares of the remaining partnerf. This gave rise to a lingering dispute over payment of certain amounts said to be due to the outgoing partners from Shrilal (P. W. 2). 3. Now what happened on 11-3-1973 at about 7-30 p. m. was that the roof of the flour-mill caught fire reducing everything it contained to a shambles. While reporting the incident at the police-station Andori on 12-3-1973 at 6-00 a.m. vide Ex.P-l, Shrilal (P.W. 2) specifically named the accused Pritamsingh and Daulatram, who happen to be his next door neighbours with the roof of their cattle-shed almost touching that of the flour-mill, as the persons responsible for the arson. At the trial, the accused persons vehemently denied their hand in the episode. The learned Sessions Judge, Bhind, however, up. held the prosecution case which of course was as presented by Shrilal (P.W. 2) in FIR Ex. P-l. What I have to determine in this appeal, therefore, is whether This conclusion about the guilt of the accused persons calls for any interference or not, which the Sessions Judge has based on the evidence recorded in Committal Court. 4. Held: It is worthy of note that although this fire incident took place in the evening of 11-3-1973, it is only after a lapse of about 12 hours that a report about it was lodged at the police-station Andori. In his anxiety to explain this delay, Shrilal (P.W. 2) got himself entangled into a hornet's nest. He says that the fire subsided within a couple of hours and soon thereafter he went to the police-siation Andori (a distance of hardly 10 kilometres) in the tempo of Bharatsingh (P. W. 5) who of course was at tbe wheel. In his anxiety to explain this delay, Shrilal (P.W. 2) got himself entangled into a hornet's nest. He says that the fire subsided within a couple of hours and soon thereafter he went to the police-siation Andori (a distance of hardly 10 kilometres) in the tempo of Bharatsingh (P. W. 5) who of course was at tbe wheel. It is also his submission that he reached there the very night which he must have. In the premises, the report could have been lodged say by 10-00 p. m. latest. His explanation, however, is that the Station Officer, Andori, who had retired for the night, dismissed him with the reply that he would take down his report in the morning only. But in this, he is totally belied by Shiv Vilas Singh (P. W. 1) who was the Station Officer, Andori at the relevant time. 5. The real reason for the delay in reporting the incident at the police-station, Andori, however, is not very far to see., Neither Shrilal (P.W. 2) nor Dataram (P.W. 4) and Bharatsingh (P.W. 5) saw the accused persons setting the roof of the flour-mill on fire. It could have been a case of accidental fire just as well. But a victim of a fire is often reluctant to face the reality unless of course he is obliged to rule out all other options. Shrilal (P. W. 2)., it seems, did not have patience enough to examine other possibilities. What with the facts that the accused persons reside just by the side of his flour-mill and his enmity with them he and his well-wishers, namely, Dataram (P.W. 4) and Bharatsingh (P.W. 5) would seem to have spent the night painting the accused persons as the villains of the piece. For, who except the well-wishers, would go to the dangerous length of staking their oath as Dataram (P.W. 4) and Bharatsingh (P. W. 5) did in order to involve innocent persons into such an incident without the least knowledge about their hand in it. It will, thus be seen that the truth is not as told by Dataram (P. W 4) and Bharatsingh (P. W. 5) before the Committal Court. That version of theirs was as inspired one. They themselves have dismissed it as false. It will, thus be seen that the truth is not as told by Dataram (P. W 4) and Bharatsingh (P. W. 5) before the Committal Court. That version of theirs was as inspired one. They themselves have dismissed it as false. There is no intrinsic evidence to support that version, for, even Shrilal (P. W. 2) has not seen the accused persons committing the mischief by fire. In the circumstances, the conclusion of the learned Sessions Judge that the version of Dataram (P. W. 4) and Bharatsingh (P. W. 5) before the Committal Court has intrinsic support in the evidence of Shrilal (P. W. 2) is not at all sustainable. AIR 1964 SC 1357 followed. Appeal allowed.