JUDGMENT U.K. Varma, J. - This is an appeal against the judgment and order of Sri L.S. Shukla, V Additional Sessions Judge, Shahjahapur dated July 17, 1979 convicting the appellants Ram Chandra, Rajeshwar and Dev Narain under Section 436/34 of the Indian Penal Code read with Section 34 thereof and sentencing them to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years and pay a fine of Rs. 100/- each and in default of payment of fine to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for four months. 2. The prosecution case briefly is that Dev Narain appellant on the instigation of Ram Chandra and Rajeshwar appellants set fire to the hut of Devendra Kumar at 11 p. m. on 7-7-1976 in village Bela Chheda by Match stick causing him a loss of Rs. 2,000/-. 3. The first information report of the incident had been lodged at 12.45 p. m. next day i.e. 8-7-1976 in the Police Station Powyan which is at a distance of five miles from Bela Chheda. The prosecution examined Devendra Kumar (P.W.1) and Balak Ram (P.W. 3) as the witnesses of the occurrence. The check report was proved by the Constable clerk Shiv Ram. The Investigating officer, however, had not been examined. 4. I heard learned counsel for the appellant and also counsel for the State and went through the record. From the first information report it follows that Devendra Kumar had reached the hut when he was awakened by the barking of his dog. The witness Balak Ram claimed to have arrived after he heard Devendra shouting. Devendra in his statement in the trial Court pointed that the house wherein he was sleeping was at a distance of 159 to 200 steps. It is very unlikely that the appellants Ram Chandra and Rejeshwar would have waited for him to arrive to instigate Dev Narain to set his hut on fire. Dev Narain is related to Ram Chandra and Rajeshwar and resided in a different village. The informant Devendra Kumar (P. W. 1) tried to suggest that the fire could not be quenched as Ram Chandra and Rajeshwar kept on firing with their guns which terrorised the others from extinguishing the fire with the aid of water from the nearby tank. The prosecution witness Balak Ram expressed inability to say as to who had done the firing. The prosecution witness Balak Ram expressed inability to say as to who had done the firing. The counsel for the appellant justifiably argued that story of the firing had been introduced to falsely rope in Ram Chandra and Rajeshwar appellants for if they really would have shot from their guns Balak Ram could not have failed to notice them for on the showing of Devendra, they had shot after the arrival of Balak Ram. 5. It next is to be seen that Balak Ram pointed that it had rained heavily before the incident, whereas Devendra Kumar gave out that there were no rains at all. It is difficult to believe that in case Devendra (P.W. 1) and Balak Ram (P. W. 3) and others had arrived soon after the that hed roof had been ignited by a match-stick, the whole of the huts could have got burnt in spite of that efforts to extinguish to fire. There is admittedly enmity between the informant and the appellants. The informant tried to suggest that he lodged the F.I.R. next day at 12.45 p. m. as he had been trying to quench the fire. The suggestion made on behalf of the informant is altogether unreliable. The delay in the lodging of the F.I.R. appears to be due to the fact that the informant took time to decide as to whom to implicate and how to cook the case as he had not seen how his huts caught fire. From the above discussion it follows that no reliable evidence had been led to bring home the guilt of the appellants to them. ORDER The appeal is allowed. The impugned judgment and order convicting the appellants under Section 436 read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code and sentencing them to two years rigorous imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs. 100/- are set aside and the appellants are acquitted of the above' charge. They are on bail. They need not surrender to their bail bounds which are discharged.