D. M. DBARRNADHIKARI, J. ( 1 ) THIS revision at the instance of complainant in a police case is against the order of acquittal of the accused respondent No. 1, for commission of alleged offence under section 435 of the Indian Penal Code. ( 2 ) ACCORDING to the complainant's case at about 12. 00 in the mid-night intervening 17th and 18th March 1988, the accused went to the field of the complainant and set on fire the bullock cart loaded with his crops. It is stated that at the time of the incident, complainant Gulab Rani (P. W. 1) and her father-in-law Bhagoni (P. W. 2) were present. The trial Court placing reliance on the testimony of Gulabrani (P. W. 1) and Bhagoni (P. W. 2) convicted the accused and sentenced him to one Years rigorous imprisonment and fine of Rs. 5,00/ -. The appeal court, however, acquitted the accused, holding that the first version in the First Information Report does not support the case of the complainant and her witnesses before the court. It was also held by the appeal court that the conduct of the alleged eye witnesses at the time of the incident, does not show that they had seen the accused setting rue to the bullock cart and running away from the place of incident. ( 3 ) THE learned counsel appearing for the complainant in this revision made strenuous effort to persuade this Court to interfere in revision and send the matter by remand to the appeal court for a fresh decision. It is urged that the testimony of Bhagoni (P. W. 2) was totally overlooked. It is also argued that the conduct of the complainant and Bhagoni (P. W. 2) who saw the incident cannot be said to be unnatural. The criticism is that the appeal Court wrongly acquitted the accused holding that the complainant party did not raise any hue and cry after seeing the accused setting fire to the bullock cart and loaded with crops. ( 4 ) I have also heard the counsel appearing for the accused in this revision. In his reply it has been submitted by the accused that the incident was in the night of HOLY festival and the possibility of the some mischief having been committed by any resident of the village cannot be ruled out. ( 4 ) I have also heard the counsel appearing for the accused in this revision. In his reply it has been submitted by the accused that the incident was in the night of HOLY festival and the possibility of the some mischief having been committed by any resident of the village cannot be ruled out. It is also submitted that this being a revision at the instance of the complainant, this court cannot convict the accused by reversing the verdict of acquittal and this is not a fit case for remand of the matter to the appeal court only for re-appreciation of the evidence. ( 5 ) HAVING heard the learned counsel for the parties and having gone through the relevant portion of the record of the case I do not find this to be a fit case for me to interfere in revision only to send the matter to the appeal Court for a fresh decision. Having read the testimonies of Gulabrani (P. W. 1) and Bhagoni (P. W. 2), I find that the appeal court was fully justified in coming to a conclusion that the accused was falsely implicated and the incident as narrated by the complainant as having been witnessed by her is not a truthful version. Consequently the revision fails and is hereby dismissed. Petition dismissed. .