Judgment :- The petitioner now stands convicted for an offence under Section 4351.P.C. and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of 2 years and was directed to pay a fine of Rs. 2.000/- and in default of payment of fine to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of six months. Crl. R.C. No. 88 of 1992 is the suo mote revision taken by this Court and notice ordered to the Petitioner to show cause why he should not be ordered to pay compensation to P.W.1, the victim under Section 357 Crl. P.C. 2. The allegation against the Petitioner is that on 23-4-1957 the petitioner committed mischief by setting fire to the rubber plantation of the defacto complainant. It is the case of the prosecution that the petitioner who is also an owner of a plantation set fire to the leaves in his plantation and carried the burning dry leaves in his hands and threw them into the plantation of the defacto complainant and as a result of which some rubber trees were destroyed and P.W.1 sustained loss. 3. The counsel for the petitioner submits that the prosecution has miserably failed to bring home the guilt of the accused according to the prosecution, the occurrence was witnessed by P.Ws. 2 to 4 and of them P. W. 3 turned hostile. It is the further case of the prosecution that P.W.1 used to visit his plantation once in a week and on the day of the occurrence when he came to the plantation he was informed by the eyewitness that the occurrence had taken place on account of the mischief committed by the petitioner. It is also the case of the prosecution that the first information report came to be registered only at 6 p.m. on 27.4.1987 i.e. nearly 4 days later. There is no explanation as to why the complainant did not immediately lay a complaint with the police even though he knew about the occurrence on the same day, viz. on 23.4.1987. The case of the prosecution is that the petitioner set fire to some dry leaves lying in his own property and a bunch of burning leaves were taken in hand and he deposited in the property of the complainant which was also filled with dry leaves and creepers. on 23.4.1987. The case of the prosecution is that the petitioner set fire to some dry leaves lying in his own property and a bunch of burning leaves were taken in hand and he deposited in the property of the complainant which was also filled with dry leaves and creepers. It is unbelievable that the petitioner after setting fire to the dry leaves carried the burning leaves in his hand and deposited them in the property of the complainant. Further if the petitioner wanted to set fire to the plantation of the complainant he could have set fire to the dry leaves that were lying in the property of the complainant and it was not necessary for him to set fire to the dry leaves in his plantation of the complainant. It is also brought to my notice that in between the plantations of the complainant and the petitioner there was another estate belonging to one Kunhali consisting of about 30 acres. If the petitioner has to set fire to the estate of the complainant then it is necessary for him to cross the 30 acres to reach the estate of the complainant for the purpose of throwing the dry burning leaves. I am not able to believe the prosecution case. 4. According to the prosecution the occurrence was witnessed by P.Ws. 2 to 4 and as already stated P.W.3 turned hostile though P.Ws.2 and 4 were produced before the court to speak about the occurrence. Their names are not mentioned in the first information report which was belatedly laid on 27.4.1987. According to P.W.1. he used to visit his estate once in a a week and on that particular day i.e. 23.4.1987 he visited the estate and came to know from the eye-witnesses about the act committed by the petitioner. This is contradicted by P.W.2 who has stated in his evidence that after the occurrence he went and informed P.W.1, the complainant, who came to the estate only on the next day namely 24.4.1987. If P.Ws,2 and 4 were really the eyewitnesses and if P.W.1 really was informed about the occurrence by P.Ws. 2 and 4, one would naturally expect the complainant to mention their names in the first information report registered at 6 p.m. on 27.4.1987. If P.Ws,2 and 4 were really the eyewitnesses and if P.W.1 really was informed about the occurrence by P.Ws. 2 and 4, one would naturally expect the complainant to mention their names in the first information report registered at 6 p.m. on 27.4.1987. The absence of the names of the eye-witnesses in the belated first information report also throws a considerable doubt about the prosecution case. 5. In view of the discussions made above I am of the view that the petitioner is entitled for benefit of doubt and accordingly that benefit of doubt is given to the petitioner. The revision petition Crl.R.P. No. 794 of 1992 is allowed. The petitioner is acquitted. The bail bonds executed by him shall stand cancelled. The fine amount if paid will be refunded to the petitioner. In view of the findings in Crl.R.P. No. 794 of 1992, Cr1.R.C. No. 88 of 1992 is dismissed.