B. C. JAUHARI, J. ( 1 ) THIS appeal has been filed by Ram Autar against his conviction and sentence of four years R. I. under Section 436 Indian Penal Code imposed on him by Sri Brahma Nand, 1st Addi. Sessions Judge, Banda dated 29-10-1977. ( 2 ) THE occurrence is said to have been taken place in the night of 25/26-3-1974 in Makhtupurwa hamlet of village Dubaria at 1-00 a. m. It is said in the F. I. R. that the accused appellant Ram Autar set fire to the heap karvi lying on the west of the house of Jogeshwar P. W. 2 the complainant as a result of which the entire lot was burnt and the fire even extended to his house which was also burnt. The neighbour Bahori PW 3 was sleeping and woke up to ease himself when he saw the appellant actually setting fire to the heap by burning three or four match-sticks. An alarm was raised which brought Ram Autar PW 4 and others on the scene. The complainant got his report written through Hira Lal Yadav which is Ex. 1 and the report was lodged at Police Station Badosa at 13-30 p. m. the same day. The report was written by Khem Raj Singh PW 1 who registered a case in the General Diary copy of which is Ex. ka. 3 Sri Awadh Raj Singh Sub-Inspector PW 5 investigated the case and took down the statement of the witnesses, inspected the locality, prepared the site plan Ex. ka. 4 and after completing the investigation, submitted charge sheet Ex. ka. 6 against the accused. ( 3 ) THE accused pleaded not guilty and attributed his implication in the case due to enmity. The learned Sessions Judge however, came to the conclusion that the offence under Section 436 Indian Penal Code was made out against the appellant and in the result recorded conviction in the case. ( 4 ) I have heard the learned counsel for the appellant and the learned counsel at great length and come to the conclusion that the appeal must be allowed and the conviction and sentences recorded by the learned Sessions Judge must be set aside. ( 4 ) I have heard the learned counsel for the appellant and the learned counsel at great length and come to the conclusion that the appeal must be allowed and the conviction and sentences recorded by the learned Sessions Judge must be set aside. The prosecution in this case has examined Jageshwar PW 2 Bahori PW 3 and Ram Autar PW 4 to support the occurrence Jageshwar P W 2 and Ram Autar P W 4 have not been the actual setting of the fire by the accused-appellant and have given more or less circumstantial evidence. Bahori PW 3 has claimed to have seen actually the setting of fire and his statement requires a closer examination. On his own showing Bahori was also aggrieved inasmuch as the fire spread to his house and his house hold effects were also burnt. In his examination in chief he stated that he was sleeping inside the house and woke up to ease himself and then saw the accused setting fire. The site plan goes to show that his house is situate to the north of the heap which was set fire to. In his cross examination he changed his version and said that he was sleeping outside his house. Then he said that the entrance of his house is towards north. If that were so, he would got on the west to ease and see the accused lighting the match sticks. He would than go to the north to ease himself. He admits that if a person stands outside towards the north of the house then he would not be able to see the place of occurrence. It is only when he comes to the west that he will be able to see the occurrence. It was the night incident and it is admitted by this witness that it was a dark night. There was therefore, no light to enable him to see and identify the accused. The light created by the burning of starw would take some time atleast 5 or 10 minutes before it can enable others to see the faces distinctly. The complainant PW 2 Jageshwar was sleeping inside the house and came out on hearing the alarm raised by Bahori. He admits that the accused used to damage his field. It is also admitted by him that in that field the witness Bahori was also a co-sharers. The complainant PW 2 Jageshwar was sleeping inside the house and came out on hearing the alarm raised by Bahori. He admits that the accused used to damage his field. It is also admitted by him that in that field the witness Bahori was also a co-sharers. He has denied the suggestion that actually the field belongs-to the accused. The result is that both Jageshwar and Bahori are inimical to the accused on the issue of the field. Consequently, it is quite possible for the complainant to implicate the accused in this crime. ( 5 ) IT is further significant in this case that the fire incident took place at mid night at 1-00 a. m. and the report of the occurrence was lodged more than 12 hours after the incident although the police station was just two miles away. In the report it is said that the fire was put out by 10-00 a. m. It is thus a very great exaggeration because that would mean that the fire continued for about 9 hours. The damage caused was to two kothas as shown by the Investigating Officer in the site plan. Surely it would not have taken 9 hours for these two kothas to be burnt. Even if it is assumed that the fire continued upto ten Oclock then also the distance of two miles would be covered within 1/2 hour and the report could have been lodged by 10-30 or 11-00 a. m. The conclusion, therefore, is that the report is very much delayed and appears to be the result of deliberation. ( 6 ) APART from the highly interested witnesses the prosecution also relies on the statement of Ram Autar PW 4. This Ram Autar has claimed that he was sleeping in the khaliyan and in the cross examination he admits that he reaches the place of occurrence in 5 or 10, minutes. It is, therefore, surprising how even after 5 or 10 minutes he was able to see the accused running away from the scene. When he was asked pointedly in the cross-examination he had to admit that when he went from his khaliyan to the place of occurrence, he did not meet anyone in the way. This now negatives his assertion, that he saw the appellant running away from the scene of occurrence. When he was asked pointedly in the cross-examination he had to admit that when he went from his khaliyan to the place of occurrence, he did not meet anyone in the way. This now negatives his assertion, that he saw the appellant running away from the scene of occurrence. ( 7 ) CONSIDERING all the facts and circumstances of the case I feel that the report of the occurrence is very much belated and there is no reliable evidence to support the prosecution version. Consequently, the conviction cannot be sustained. ( 8 ) IN the result the appeal is allowed. The conviction and sentence recorded by the learned Sessions Judge are set aside. The appellant is on bail. He need not surrender and his bail bonds are discharged. Appeal allowed. .