JUDGMENT (ORAL) R.M. Lodha, J. - This criminal appeal filed at the instance of the accused/appellant Yadao Ghanshyam Lad is directed against his conviction for the offence under Section 436 of the Indian Penal Code by the Additional Sessions Judge, Pusad, and whereby the accused/appellant has been sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for three years and to pay a fine of Rs. 1000/ - and in default of payment of fine, to suffer further rigorous imprisonment (or one year. 2. Mr. Daga, the learned counsel for the accused/appellant strenuously urged that the prosecution has miserably failed to prove the guilt of the accused for the offence punishable under Section 436 of the Indian Penal Code beyond reasonable doubt. According to the learned counsel, there was no eye witness produced by tile prosecution and the circumstances relied upon by the prosecution do not connect the accused with the crime under Section 436 of the Indian Penal Code. The learned counsel, thus, submitted that tile judgment of conviction and sentence passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Pus3d is based on no evidence and, therefore, the accused/appellant deserves to be acquitted. 3. The accused/appellant was charged by the Additional Sessions Judge, Pusad on 6-1-1995 that on or about 30-4-1992 in between 3.30 a.m. to 4.00 a.m. at village Dhanki, the accused committed mischief by fire intending thereby to cause the destruction of a building viz., a cattle shed belonging to one Gangadhar Nagan Mitkare of Dhanki which was ordinarily used for storing cattle-fodder and agricultural implements and caused damage of onion worth Rs. 45,000/- to Rs. 50,000/- and thereby he committed an offence punishable under Section 436 of the Indian Penal Code. 4. A report (Exhibit 16) was lodged by P. W.2 Pralhad Rambhau Kanthane at Police Station, Bittergaon and it was alleged therein that on 30-4-1992 at about 3.30 a.m. while accused/appellant was going towards Kopra Road along the other end of his field by taking the jersey cow having black colour with white dots on face and forehead belonging to one Ratnakar Dagadu Kodgirwar, resident of village Dhanki, Sheshrao Mitkare accosted him by coming to road on hearing sound of the bullock cart during night-watch in his field. On flashing torch light, he identified that the bullock cart belonged to the informant and thereupon the accused Yadao abandoned the cart by leaving it there and fled away. On flashing torch light, he identified that the bullock cart belonged to the informant and thereupon the accused Yadao abandoned the cart by leaving it there and fled away. On raising shouts, servants in the vicinity gathered including Sheshrao's servants Yadav and Vithal. 5. Another report was lodged by one Gangadhar Nagan Mitkare at Police Station Bittergaon and it was alleged therein that on 30-4-1992 between 3.30 and 4 a.m. his son Sheshrao was present in the field for night-watch and during that time, he heard sound of bullock cart whereupon his son got up and went towards the road to see as to what it was. He saw bullock cart going along the road. His son Sheshrao flashed torch light on the bullock cart and bullocks and saw that it was the bullock cart of Pralhad Kamthane. Sheshrao became suspicious and he flashed the torch light on the cart-man and identified the said man as Yadao (accused) and raised shouts. Sheshrao called servant Yadav and Vithal Sutyabhan Shipurwad. Thereupon Yadao (accused) gave abuses in filthy language, ran away and set his cattle-shed on fire and as a result thereof, his agricultural implements, onions etc. were burnt causing total loss of Rs. 45,000/- to Rs. 50,000/-. 6. On the basis of the report lodged by Gangadhar Mitkare, Crime No. 38/92 was registered at Police Station, Bittergaon and the investigation commenced. On conclusion of investigation, the Investigating Officer charge-sheeted the accused/appellant and as stilted above, the Additional Sessions Judge, Pusad framed charge under Section 436 of the Indian Penal Code against the accused/appellant. 7. Accused/appellant pleaded not guilty and prosecution in support of its case examined P. W.I Prakash Vithal Raut, P.W.2 Pralhad Rambhau Kamthane, P.W.3 Sheshrao Gangadhar Mitkare, P.W.4 Hanwata Takaram Shirge, P.W.5 Yadav Bapurao Darshanwat, P.W.6 Abdul Rehman Abdul Gaffar and also exhibited spot pachanama (Exhibit 13), report lodged by Pralhad (Ex. 16), report lodged by Gangadhar (Ex. 19) and printed First Information Report (Exhibit 24). 8. Statement of accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C. was recorded and he stated that the evidence led by the prosecution was false and he has been implicated falsely, because be had illicit relations with daughter of Gangadhar Mitkare from 1985 to 1987. He stated that Ghanshyam and Sheshrao were aggrieved due to the illicit relations of accused with the daughter of Gangadhar and they suspected that she was pregnant from the accused. He stated that Ghanshyam and Sheshrao were aggrieved due to the illicit relations of accused with the daughter of Gangadhar and they suspected that she was pregnant from the accused. According to the accused/appellant, for the aforesaid reason, he has been falsely implicated. 9. The Trial Court on 15-2-1995 after hearing the learned Addl. Public Prosecutor and the learned counsel for the accused/appellant concluded that the prosecution has been able to prove that on 30-4-1992 at about 3.30 a.m. in the night at village Dhanki, the accused committed mischief by fire and thereby set on fire the cattle-shed of Gangadhar Nagan Mitkare and caused damage of onions, agricultural implements etc. worth R.s. 45,000/- to Rs. 50,000/- stored in the field and cattle-shed and, therefore, convicted the accused/ appellant for the offence punishable under Section 436 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced him, as aforesaid. 10. The Trial Court has itself found that the accused/appellant was not seen by any of the above witnesses while actually setting the cattle-shed on fire. However, on the basis of the circumstance that the accused was seen running away from the cattle-shed, the Trial Court concluded that the accused had set on fire the cattle-shed belonging to Gangadhar Mitkare. The Trial Court also observed that the evidence of P.W.3 Sheshrao and his two servants, viz. Hanwata and Yadav is consistent on the point that in the light of torch, accused was seen taking the bullock cart with jercy cow belonging to Pralhad and thereafter running away from the cattle-shed. In this background, the Trial Court held that the prosecution has been able to prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt. 11. The main evidence, therefore, consists of P.W.3 Sheshrao, P.W.4 Hanwata and P.W.5 Yadav. P.W.3 Sheshrao has deposed that at the time of incident, there were crops of sugar-cane and orange in his field and therefore, there used to be night-watch in the field. According to this witness, there was cattle shed in his field and at the time of incident, he and his servants heard the noise of barking dogs. He along with his servant Yadav went to see as to what had happened and they saw bullock cart. He flashed the light of his torch in which he saw a person sitting on the bullock cart and it was accused Yadao Ghanshyam. He along with his servant Yadav went to see as to what had happened and they saw bullock cart. He flashed the light of his torch in which he saw a person sitting on the bullock cart and it was accused Yadao Ghanshyam. He also saw a jercy cow tethered at the back side of bullock cart, and said bullocks and bullock-cart belonged to Pralhad and the jercy cow was of Ratnakar. According to this witness, accused on seeing them, ran towards Zopadpatti and P.W.3 Sheshrao and his servants rushed towards cattle shed and they found accused running away from cattie shed. They tried to catch him, but were unsuccessful. In cross-examination, he admitted that he saw the accused in the light of torch from the distance of about 40 feet. He denied the suggestion that there was natural fire to their cattle shed. P.W.4 Hanwata and P.W. 5 Yadav have also deposed to the same effect. Neither, P.W.3 Sheshrao nor P.W.4 Hanwata nor P.W. 5 Yadav saw the accused setting the cattle shed on fire. Merely because the accused/appellant is alleged to have committed theft of bullock cart belonging to Pralhad or jercy cow belonging to Ratnakar, in the absence of any connecting evidence, it cannot be inferred that it was the accused/appellant only who set the cattle shed on fire. The enmity of accused/appellant and Gangadhar and Sheshrao has been explained by the accused in his statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. Gangadhar has not been examined since he died during the pendency of trial. 12. There is no incriminating evidence connecting the accused/appellant for the offence that he set the cattle-shed of P.W.3 Sheshrao on fire. The Trial Court drew much capital out of the circumstance that though the incident took place on 30-4-1992, the accused was arrested on 3-7-1992 and that circumstance also showed the complicity of the accused in the crime but in my view the circumstance was by itself not sufficient. The possibility cannot be ruled that when P.W.3 Sheshrao, P. W. 4 Hanwata and P.W.5 Yadav saw the accused/appellant with bullock cart belonging to P.W.2 Pralhad and jercy cow belonging to Ratnakar, the accused/appellant after leaving the bullock cart and jersey cow ran away, but from the circumstance, it cannot be inferred that it was the accused/appellant who set the cattle-shed of P.W.3 Sheshrao on fire. Before the cattle-shed belonging to P.W.3 Sheshrao was set on fire, admittedly, P.W.4 Hanwata and P.W.5 Yadav had appeared on the scene and saw the accused/appellant with stolen bullock cart and jersey cow and then according to the prosecution case, the accused/appellant set fire to the cattle-shed of P.W.3 Sheshrao. There is no reason whatsoever as to why P.W.3 Sheshrao, P.W.4 Hanwata and/or P.W. 5 Yadav could not have seen the accused/ appellant setting the cattle-shed on fire if, in fact, such an act was done by the accused/appellant. 13. P.W. 6 Abdul Rehman is the Investigating Officer and his deposition does not help the prosecution case at all. 14. All in all, in the absence of direct evidence, the circumstances pointed out and proved on record by the prosecution cannot be said to be sufficient and rather, are too weak to connect the accused/appellant with the crime for the offence punishable under Section 436 of the Indian Penal Code and it cannot be said that complicity of the accused/appellant has been proved by the prosecution beyond reasonable doubt. 15. In the circumstances, therefore, I am unable to affirm the finding recorded by the Trial Court that the prosecution has been able to prove that, on 30-4-1992 at about 3.30 a.m. in the night at village Dhanki, the accused committed mischief by fire and thereby set on fire the cattle-shed of Gangadhar Nagan Mitkare and caused damage of onions and agricultural implements etc. and thereby committed an offence punishable under Section 436 of the Indian Penal Code. The finding recorded by the Trial Court to that effect is set aside. 16. In the result, this appeal deserves to be allowed and is hereby allowed. The conviction of the accused/appellant for the offence punishable under Section 436 of the Indian Penal Code is quashed and set aside and consequent upon the setting aside of the conviction of the accused, the sentence awarded to him by the Additional Sessions Judge, Pusad on 15-2-1995 is also quashed and set aside. Appellant/accused is acquitted of the offence punishable under Section 436 of the Indian Penal Code. Accused/Appellant be released forthwith if not required in any other case. Appeal allowed. Conviction set aside.