JUDGMENT The learned trial Judge had placed reliance on the version of Bhukhan (P.W.3) -- wife of Parghaniya, but the version of this witness also does not conclusively establish that it was the appellant Noora and Meera who had set fire to her house. This witness Bhukhan had stated in her examination-in-chief that Meera and others had set fire to her house, but, during her cross- examination, her version was that it was Noora who had set fire to the house and that, she had given incorrect version about Meera. According to the version of Bhukhan (P.W.3), Kallu had given the match-box to Noora. This witness Bhukhan was confronted with portion marked B to B of her diary statement (Ex.D-3), but she denied having given the said statement to the police, according to which, Noora Musalman had taken out the match-box from his own pocket and had lit the same and had set fire to the Chhani (roof) of her house. Thus, implicit reliance cannot be placed on the version of Bhukhan, because, she had given contradictory versions regarding the person or persons having set fire to her house. Jugru (P.W.4) had himself not seen as to who had set fire to the house of the complainant and, from his own version, it is clear that he was in his house when he heard the noise about the fire. In cross-examination of this witness, this witness had clearly stated that he did not know as to who has set the house on fire. Thus, the version of this witness Jugru (P.WA) also does not help the prosecution case regarding the appellants having set fire to the house of the complainant Parghaniya. The learned trial Judge had placed reliance on the version of Ghasiya (P. W.6). This witness Ghasiya had stated in his examination-in-chief that Meera and Noora had set fire to the house of Parghaniya. According to this witness, Meera and Noora were standing in front of the door of the house and, then he had gone near them and had chastised them and had removed them and had, then, opened the door and, then Bali and Parghaniya had come out of the house During the cross-examination, this witness Ghasiya (P.W.6) was confronted with his case diary statement (Ex. D.5) and his attention had been drawn to portions marked A to A,B to Band C to C, but he denied that he had given such statements to the police. There are material contradictions in the version of this witness Ghasiya given before the police during the investigation and the version given by this witness in the Court. In the Court, this witness had stated about the accused Noor and Meera standing in front of the house, but, in the version given to the police (portion marked C to C in Ex. D-5), he had stated about accused Faiz Musalman standing catching hold of the door. Further, according to the version of Ghasiya given to the police, as per Ex.D-5, portions marked A to A and B to B, he was sleeping in his house when he heard the noise and when he reached, the house of Konda was burning and Faiz Musalman was standing in front of the door, catching hold of it, but this witness had changed his version before the Court and tried to show that he had actually seen Meera and Noora setting fire to the house but his version does not inspire any confidence, because, had he actually seen the accused Meera and Noora setting fire to the house, this fact would have found place in the statement (Ex.D-5) given to the police during the investigation, but this version is missing in the case-dairy statement -although the witness tried to show that he had told the police that Meera and Noora had set fire. The fact that Meera and Noora had set fire to the house, is a material omission in the case-diary statement (Ex.D-5) of Ghasiya, which amounts to a contradition. It appears that the learned trial Judge had over-looked the aforesaid material omission in the case-diary statement (Ex.D-5) of Ghasiya. There are, therefore, improvements made by this witness in the statement given before the Court and the statement given to the police during investigation and, so, no implicit reliance can be placed on his version regarding the fact that he had actually seen the appellants Noora and Meera setting fire to the. house of the complainant Parghaniya. Govind (P. W. 7) is also said to be an eye-witness to the incident and he is the son of the complainant Parghaniya alias Konda. house of the complainant Parghaniya. Govind (P. W. 7) is also said to be an eye-witness to the incident and he is the son of the complainant Parghaniya alias Konda. According to the version of Govind (P.W.7), he had seen Meera and Noora setting fire to his house from a distance of about 65 yards. According to the version of this witness, he had run away after his house was set on fire. Govind has stated that he knows Ghasiya and that, he was in his house, although Ghasiya (P.W.6) had tried to show that he was sleeping in his house at the time of the incident. From the version of Govind (P. W. 7), is appears that a crowd had collected there and that, there were about 100 persons who had gathered there. It also appears from the version of Govind that, when a quarrel started taking place between Sanwant and Bali, at that time, the crowd became panicky and, so, he went back to his Para and when he reached, at that time, his house was completely burnt, If this version of Govind that when he reached, the house had been completely burnt, is true, then the version given by him that he had seen Meera and Noora setting fire to his house, becomes rather doubtful. There is, therefore, no cogent, reliable and trustworthy evidence from which it could be safely said beyond all reasonable and probable doubt that it was the appellants Noora and Meera alone who had set fire to the house of the complainant Paraghaniya. Besides this, from the prosecution evidence on record, it is clear that there was a crowd of about 100 persons and that, it was Diwali day, but, surprisingly enough, no independent witness was examined in the case to prove as to which accused person or persons had actually set fire to the house of the complainant. Independent evidence regarding the incident was all the more necessary -looking to the fact that the relations between the parties were strained arid proceedings under section 107/116 of Cr.P.C. were initiated against both the parties as per Ex.P-13 and Ex. P-14 on record. Independent evidence regarding the incident was all the more necessary -looking to the fact that the relations between the parties were strained arid proceedings under section 107/116 of Cr.P.C. were initiated against both the parties as per Ex.P-13 and Ex. P-14 on record. There is absolutely no doubt that the incident about the house of the complainant Paraghaniya having been set on fire; had taken place- causing loss to the complainant, but the evidence of interest witnesses examined on behalf of the prosecution, cannot be said to be reliable or trustworthy, and, so, in the absence of cogent and reliable evidence, it cannot be said that the conclusions reached by the learned trial Judge, about the appellants Noora and Meera having set fire to the house of the complainant, are correct. In my opinion, the evidence adduced on behalf of the prosecution, regarding the house of the complainant having been set on fire, against the appellants Noora and Meera, is rather shaky and not convincing and, so, their conviction and sentence of rigorous imprisonment for three years, awarded by the learned trial Court under sections 436 and 436/34 of I.P.C. respectively, cannot be maintained and the same has to be set aside. Appeal partly allowed.