R.S. VERMA, J.—Learned Sessions Judge, Churu, by his judgment dated 28.2.79 has found appellant Bhom Singh guilty of an offence u/s 436 I.P.C. and has sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years and to pay a fine of Rs. 200/- and in default to undergo, further, rigorous imprisonment of two months. Aggrieved, Bhom Singh has come in appeal. 2. Briefly stated, the prosecution story is that PW 10 Smt. Naurti was the concubine of Thakur Kusalsingh, father of the appellant. Rs. 1400/- had been stolen from the house of Smt. Naurti and she suspected the appellant about this theft. It is alleged that there was some sort of quarrel between Smt. Naurti and Bhomsingh upon which Bhomsingh threatened to burn the tapra of Smt. Naurti. 3. The prosecution story, further, is that on 1.6.78 at about 2.30 or 3 p.m., the appellant along with his brother Nathu Singh set the tapra of Smt. Naurti on fire. PW 6 Dalu Ram and his nephew PW 7 Ramu Ram happen to pass that way and both of them saw Bhom Singh and Nathu Singh setting the bad of Smt. Naurti on fire. At that time, Bhom Singh was having one siniya in a burning state in his hand. The prosecution story is that Dalu Ram and Ramu Ram raised an alarm with the result that a large number of persons assembled there including PW2 Mota Ram. The prosecution story, further, is that Dalu Ram and Ramu Ram told Mota Ram about this incident but the accused persons had made good their escape in the meanwhile. Since wind was blowing that day, the fire could not be extinguished and spread to entire village with the result that 60-70 houses in the village were burnt. 4. The prosecution case, further, is that a report of the incident Ex. P1 was lodged by a number of persons including Mota Ram with Shri Pritam Singh, S.H.O., police station, Sandwa on 2.6.78 at village Katar. Shri Pritam Singh was proceeding to Badsar, therefore, a case was not immediately registered. He eventually registered a case u/s 436 I.P.C. against the appellant and his brother Nathu Singh on the same night at 11 p.m. after returning from Badsar. 5. Shri Pritam Singh could not prepared a site plan at that very place because he got busy in extinguishing this huge bon fire. He eventually registered a case u/s 436 I.P.C. against the appellant and his brother Nathu Singh on the same night at 11 p.m. after returning from Badsar. 5. Shri Pritam Singh could not prepared a site plan at that very place because he got busy in extinguishing this huge bon fire. He, therefore came back to Badsar on 3.6.78 and made a usual site inspection and prepared site plan Ex. P4 and its legend Ex. P4A. Thereafter he recorded statements of various witnesses. A challan was filed against appellant Bhom Singh. Since his brother Nathu Singh was absconding, proceedings were initiated against him u/s 299 Cr.P.C. 6. Learned Sessions Judge framed a charge against the appellant u/s 436 I.P.C. to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. In support of its case, the prosecution examined PW 1 Mota Ram s/o Nattha Ram, PW 2 Mota Ram s/o Ladhu Ram, PW 3 Keshji, PW 4 Rugh Singh, PW 5 Berisal Singh, PW 6 Dalu Ram, PW 7 Ramu Ram, PW 8 Dula Ram, PW 9 Aasu Singh, PW 10Smt. Naurti and PW 11 Pritam Singh. 7. In his statement u/s 313 Cr.P.C. the appellant admitted that on the fateful day, 50 to 60 houses in the village had been burnt but he has denied his complicity in the offence. According to him, Nathu Singh was away from Badsar that day. His statement is that he had even joined in extinguishing the fire and the allegation that he had set the bada of Smt. Naurti on fire, is absolutely false. According to him, Ramu Ram was nephew of Dalu Ram. Dalu Ram and one Pema Ram had cultivated his land on crop share basis and a dispute arose between him and Dalu Ram on the question of division of the crop and, therefore, both of them, namely, Dalu Ram and Ramu Ram had a quarrel with him and had falsely implicated him. He did not lead any evidence-in defence. 8. Learned Sessions Judge relied upon the testimony of Dalu Ram and Ramu Ram and held that the accused appellant had set the bada of Smt. Naurti on fire. The incident had been witnessed by Dalu Ram and Ramu Ram both. He did not lead any evidence-in defence. 8. Learned Sessions Judge relied upon the testimony of Dalu Ram and Ramu Ram and held that the accused appellant had set the bada of Smt. Naurti on fire. The incident had been witnessed by Dalu Ram and Ramu Ram both. He has found corroboration of the testimony of these witnesses from the statement of PW 2 Mota Ram, who claims to have seen the appellant and his brother Nathu Singh running away from the spot and had seen their entering their houses. On the basis of this evidence, learned Sessions Judge held the appellant guilty as stated above and sentenced him as aforesaid. 9. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that in this case, the F.I.R. Ex. P1 was not lodged on the day of the incident though a large number of villagers were available for being despatched to police station to ledge a report. The F.I.R. was lodged on 2.6.78 by PW 1 Mota Ram. A formal F.I.R. was recorded on the basis of this report on 2.6.78 at 11 p.m. in the night. The endorsement on the formal F.I.R. Ex.P2 shows that it had been registered by the Magistrate on 17.6.78. He submits that the statements of Dalu Ram and Ramu Ram were recorded on 18.8.78 and not earlier. Even though the F.I.R. was lodged after good deal of delay, their names were not mentioned in the F.I.R. There was not even the faintest suggestion that the incident had been witnessed by Dalu Ram and Ramu Ram.. He submits that Ramu Ram being nephew of Dalu Ram has supported Dalu Rams case. Dalu Ram had a quarrel with the appellant regarding the sharing of the crop and hence, a false story has been concocted. After lapse of almost -1/2 months, he submitted that both these witnesses are chance witnesses. He, further, submits that the story that PW 2 Mota Ram had seen the appellant and his brother Nathu Singh running away from the scene of occurrence was not mentioned in the F.I.R. and, therefore, his statement does not deserve to be accepted. 10. He submits that this is a case where as many as 60 to 70 houses in the village had been burnt. 10. He submits that this is a case where as many as 60 to 70 houses in the village had been burnt. In these circumstances, there was bound to be a mass prejudice against the accused appellant and this must have actuated PW 2 Mota Ram to depose that he had seen the appellant and his brother running away. 11. He, further, submits that eventually the brother of the appellant Nathu Singh was put up for trial on the self same charge and he has been acquitted of the same. In these circumstances, he submits that the appellant deserves to be acquitted of the charge u/s 436 I.P.C. 12. Learned P.P. opposes the appeal vehemently. She submits that though this is true that Dalu Ram and Ramu Ram were examined by the police on 15.8.78, yet, she submits that this should not be a good ground for rejecting their sworn testimony. She submits that both these witnesses have deposed that they had immediately disclosed the names of the appellant and his brother to the persons present at the spot and if the persons, who were signatories to Ex. P1. did not mention their names in Ex. P1, that should not be a ground for rejection of their evidence. She submits that the testimony of PW 2 Mota Ram should also be accepted. She submits that the appeal deserves to be rejected. 13. I have carefully considered the rival contentions and have perused the record of learned court below. There is absolutely no doubt that an incident did take place on 1.6.78 wherein almost 60 to 70 houses of village Badsar had been burnt, causing immense less to the entire village community as would be evident from statement of PW 2 Mota Ram, according to whom, the entire household goods of 50 to 60 houses had been turned to ashes. This must have aroused a great anger against the culprits, real or imaginary, particularly when rumours had been afloat that the appellant was responsible for this act. 14. The F.I.R. in this case has been lodged with some delay even though a number of villagers could be available to be despatched to police station for lodging the F.I.R. Ex. P1. F.I.R. bears signatures of three persons, namely, Mota Ram Upsarpanch, Girdhari Ram and Hira Ram Panch as also thumb impressions of as many as 16 persons. 14. The F.I.R. in this case has been lodged with some delay even though a number of villagers could be available to be despatched to police station for lodging the F.I.R. Ex. P1. F.I.R. bears signatures of three persons, namely, Mota Ram Upsarpanch, Girdhari Ram and Hira Ram Panch as also thumb impressions of as many as 16 persons. The F.I.R. does vaguely mention that the appellant and his brother had set fire to the village resulting in the inforne. Curiously enough, this F.I.R. is lacking in very important and material details. This F.I.R. does not mention that the appellant and his brother had set fire to the bad of Smt. Naurti. This F.I.R. also does not mention that the incident was witnessed by Dalu Ram or Ramu Ram. The F.I.R. does not mention that Dalu Ram and Ramu Ram had seen the appellant carrying a burning siniya. The F.I.R. does not mention that the appellant and his brother had been seen running away from the spot by PW 2 Mota Ram or anybody else. These important omissions from the F.I.R.. leave one baffled and intrigned. 15. It is highly curious that the only alleged eye witnesses of the occurrence namely, PW 6 Dalu Ram and PW 7 Ramu Ram were examined by Shri Pritam Singh on 18.8.78 i.e. almost after lapse of two months and 16 days from the date of occurrence. Prosecution has not furnished any reason, good, bad or indifferent for this delay in recording the statements of these two witnesses. This again leaves one guessing. When statements of prosecution witnesses are recorded after such inordinate delay, the Court would expect the prosecution to offer some explanation for this delay. It is true that delay by itself would not be a good ground to reject the otherwise trustworthy testimony of eye witnesses. But if the witnesses are found to be infirm and unreliable, then this factor would have to be taken into consideration by the Court while assessing the testimony of such witnesses. 16. Admittedly, PW 6 Dalu Ram is the maternal uncle of PW 7 Ramu Ram and thus both of them are interested in each other. On his own showing, Dalu Ram was a chance witness because according to him, he was going to plough his field. The same is the position of Ramu Ram. 16. Admittedly, PW 6 Dalu Ram is the maternal uncle of PW 7 Ramu Ram and thus both of them are interested in each other. On his own showing, Dalu Ram was a chance witness because according to him, he was going to plough his field. The same is the position of Ramu Ram. The incident is said to have taken place on 1.6.78 when summer must have been at its peek. Normally that is not the ploughing time of fields. The ploughing operations begin around 15th June. 17. Dalu Ram is not a wholly reliable witness. In cross examination, he admitted that he had cultivated some fields in the earlier year in partnership of the appellant but he denied that a quarrel had taken place between the appellant and this witness regarding sharing of the crops. PW 2 Mota Ram categorically admitted in his cross examination that a quarrel did take place between Dalu Ram and the accused in the previous year on the question of sharing of the crop and that is why Dalu Ram and appellant had abandoned their joint cultivation. This admission of Mota Ram goes to show that Dalu Ram had some axe to grind against the appellant. Hence, the statements of Dalu Ram and his nephew, both of whom happen to be chance witnesses, have to be accepted with a pinch of salt. 18. Dalu Ram in his cross examination has stated that he had informed Mota Ram son of Nathu Ram Upsarpanch that the fire had been set by Bhom Singh and Nathu Singh. Had it been so, this fact would have definitely found mention in Ex. P1 to which aforesaid Mota Ram PW I was a signatory. PW 1 Mota Ram states in his examination-in-chief— ^^xkao esa ;gh gYyk Fkk fd Hkkseflag o uRFkwflag us vkx yxk nh gSA He does not say in his examination-in-chief that on that day Dalu Ram and Ramu Ram had informed him that it was the appellant, who had started the fire. Of course, in his cross examination, he has tried to say that he had been informed by Dalu Ram and Ramu Ram about the fire. It is then surprising why PW 1 Mota Ram did not mention name of the accused appellant in the F.I.R. 19. Of course, in his cross examination, he has tried to say that he had been informed by Dalu Ram and Ramu Ram about the fire. It is then surprising why PW 1 Mota Ram did not mention name of the accused appellant in the F.I.R. 19. Dalu Ram in cross examination has stated that he had seen Bhom Singh igniting a siniya by a match stick. He had also seen Bhom Singh coming from the side of his house and he also saw Bhom Singh going back to his house after setting the bada of Smt. Naurti on fire. He has admitted that he did not try to catch hold of the accused at that time. He has admitted that at that time Smt. Naurti was present at her house. If this witness had really seen Bhom Singh coming from his house and had also seen Bhom Singh- igniting a match stick and had also seen "Bhom Singh burning a siniya with the match stick and had further seen the appellant putting the bad of Smt. Naurti on fire, it is but natural to expect that he would have immediately called Smt. Naurti and informed her of the same and would have tried either to everpower the accused and prevent him from setting the bad to fire or would have tried to catch him when he was running away. Nothing of the sort was done by Dalu Ram and all this applies to the testimony of his nephew Ramu Ram. Hence, I find that the statements of these two witnesses are absolutely unnatural and unworthy of credence. 20. The truth appears to be that the names of the appellant and his brother had figured in the F.I.R. and a rumour had spread in the village that the appellant and his brother had set the village on fire. Mass prejudice must have been generated against the appellant and that is why, Dalu Ram and Ramu Ram have come after a long delay of more than two months to depose about the incident. 21. It may here be stated that the hut of Dalu Ram himself had been burnt that day as admitted by Dalu Ram in his cross examination. This was also the reason for him to share the mass prejudice against the accused appellant. 22. There is one important discrepancy between the statement of Dalu Ram and Ramu Ram. 21. It may here be stated that the hut of Dalu Ram himself had been burnt that day as admitted by Dalu Ram in his cross examination. This was also the reason for him to share the mass prejudice against the accused appellant. 22. There is one important discrepancy between the statement of Dalu Ram and Ramu Ram. According to both these witnesses, they had gone together to the scene of occurrence. Ramu Ram admitted that he did not see Bhom Singh igniting the siniya and had only seen the burning siniya in his hand. This discrepancy though apparently insignificant, is of some importance when I find that Dalu Ram had so previous enmity with the appellant. 23. Mota Ram has stated in his examination-in-chief that he was at his house on the fateful noon when he heard Dalu Ram and Rupa Ram crying that Bhom Singh and Nathu Singh were burning the house of Smt. Naurti. Now Dalu Ram and Ramu Ram do not claim that they were showing that the accused persons were burning the house of Smt. Naurti. This witness further states that hearing the hue and cry, he went to the spot and then he saw appellant Bhom Singh and his brother Nathu Singh running and entering their house. In cross examination, he says that he saw Bhom Singh and Nathu Singh at a distance of about 20 powndas from the scene of occurrence and he did not try to catch hold of them because the villagers were busy in bringing out the household goods from the house. It is interesting to note that this witness was also examined by the Investigating Officer on 18.8.78 and not earlier. This factor in the particular facts and circumstances of this case creats a good deal of doubt so far as the veracity of the version of this witness is concerned. 24. From a careful perusal of the evidence on record, I am of the view that there is a good deal of doubt about the complicity of the accused appellant in the incident. I do not mean to say that he did not at all commit the offence. He might have committed the offence but the prosecution has to prove its case beyond a shadow of reasonable doubt. In this case, all the circumstances put together do create a reasonable doubt about the guilt of the accused appellant. I do not mean to say that he did not at all commit the offence. He might have committed the offence but the prosecution has to prove its case beyond a shadow of reasonable doubt. In this case, all the circumstances put together do create a reasonable doubt about the guilt of the accused appellant. There is a good deal of distance to be traversed between the two propositions "may have committed" and "must have committed". In the present case, the prosecution has failed to traverse this distance by impartial, cogent and trustworthy evidence. 25. In the passing, I may mention that Smt. Naurti has not supported the prosecution story that she had a quarrel with the accused appellant and accused appellant had then threatened to burn her tapra. 26. The testimony of PW 1 Mota Ram is based on hearsay and does not advance the case of the prosecution. The same is the case with the testimony of PW 3 Keshji, PW 4 Rugh Singh, PW. 5 Berisal Singh and PW 8 Dula Ram. Dula Ram has admitted that when he went to extinguish the fire after learning of the same, he had seen appellant Bhom Singh standing at his house, which was at a distance of 10 powndas from the house of Smt. Naurti. Had the appellant started the fire, then he would not have continued standing at his house. Testimony of Aasu Singh is also to the same effect. The testimony of these witnesses again goes to create a doubt about the veracity of the version given by PW 2 Mota Ram. 27. In view of what I have stated above, I find that the prosecution has failed to prove its case against the accused appellant beyond shadow of reasonable doubt and the accused appellant is entitled to the benefit of this doubt. 28. I, therefore, accept this appeal and set aside the conviction and sentence of the accused appellant for offence u/s 436 I.P.C. and acquit him of the said charge. The appellant is said to be on bail, he need not surrender. His bail bonds are cancelled.