Judgment ( 1 ) THIS is a Criminal Revision application by original accused No. 1. He is aggrieved by the Judgment and order passed by the Sessions Court, Buldhana, where the learned Sessions Judge had dismissed the present appellant's appeal and allowed the appeal filed by the another original accused no. 13, whereby the Sessions Court had confirmed the Judgment and order of the Trial court dated 25-9-98 in Reg. Criminal Case no. 262 of 95 against the present appellant whereby trial Court convicted the appellant for the offence under Sections 341, 435 of I. P. C. for Simple Imprisonment for one year and six months and fine in default. ( 2 ) THE facts leading to the case are that on 16-12-1995, the accused along with other 12 persons stopped M. S. R. T. C. Bus bearing No. MWY-9482 requiring the Driver and other passengers to get down and thereafter, set the bus on fire. The complaint was filed by the Driver Ashokappa Jallapa Pakhara. In the complaint, he narrated the story as can be drawn from the translation of the complaint which is placed on record namely : "i saw in front of my S. T. Bus, there were 3, 4 cycles lying on the road and some people were also sleeping on the road. I immediately stopped the S. T. Bus. At that time, Dr. Hade of Shetkari Sanghatana has come near to my Bus Cabin and said that you come down from the bus and also tell the passengers to come down. At that time, the people along with him were having axes with them. Due to the fear I commuted from the Bus. At the same time people have lit the gunny bag and kept it on the tyre of the bus. I rushed there and thrown away the gunny bag. I have seen in the light there sahebrao Hade and Bhaskar Gune. They were accompanied by 25 to 30 persons. Some persons out of them broke the Diesel tank, got the gunny bags wet in diesel by putting them under the diesel tank and then by putting the said gunny bags on all the tyres burnt, the S. T. Bus. At that time, the passengers who were sitting in the Bus, due to fear, left the spot. Along with me the conductor Dukare and two passengers 1. Ganpat Raman Sadal and 2. At that time, the passengers who were sitting in the Bus, due to fear, left the spot. Along with me the conductor Dukare and two passengers 1. Ganpat Raman Sadal and 2. Udhav Haribhau avcher r/o. Kalbeshwar gone walking to anjani and the Police Patil Sarda. . . . S. T. Bus by the Shetkari Sanghatana of karegaon. But as the phone was not materialised, we came in Jeep to Police Station Mehkar and given report in writing. " ( 3 ) IN the trial, various witnesses were examined amongst whom the evidence of the complainant who is witness No. 5 for the prosecution is material. The learned Trial court after hearing the evidence found that though charge-sheet was filed against in all 13 accused persons, the prosecution has failed to bring home the charge against the accused persons except the accused Nos. 1 and 13. Though according to the complaint, it was a case of an offence committed by unlawful assembly, the Trial Judge found that :- "17. In view of my findings on point nos. 3 and 4, it is already held that the accused nos. l and 13 have committed the offences punishable under Sections 341 and 435 of i. P. C. Therefore, I hold them guilty for the offence punishable under Sections 341 and 435 of I. P. C. committed by them. "in the result, the Trial Court acquitted the accused Nos. 2 to 12. ( 4 ) THE accused Nos. 1 and 13 who were convicted carried the appeal to the sessions Court. The learned Sessions Judge at the hearing, reached the conclusion that the appellant No. 1 who is accused No. 1 Dr. Suresh pundlik Hade had committed the offence under sections 341 and 435 of the Indian Penal Code and that the conviction and sentence was liable to be maintained. Learned Appellate Judge found that the prosecution has not proved the case against the appellant No. 2 i. e. accused no. 13 and therefore, allowed his appeal, however, dismissed the appeal of the present appellant. It is this Judgment and order of the sessions Court which is challenged in this criminal Revision Application. ( 5 ) HEARD learned Advocate Shri. R. S. Parsodkar for the appellant and learned APP in support of judgments. 13 and therefore, allowed his appeal, however, dismissed the appeal of the present appellant. It is this Judgment and order of the sessions Court which is challenged in this criminal Revision Application. ( 5 ) HEARD learned Advocate Shri. R. S. Parsodkar for the appellant and learned APP in support of judgments. According to the learned Advocate for the appellant, the order of conviction and sentence cannot be sustained in view of omissions and contradictions vis-avis, complaint and testimony of the complainant. According to Learned Advocate Mr. Parsodkar the discrepancies are gross and writ large. The complainant had failed to identify the accused no. 1 to be the same person against whom he had filed a complaint. ( 6 ) AS can be pointed from the contents of the complaint which have been reproduced in the initial part of this judgment, that the person named as one of the persons who was "seen in the sunlight" is Sahebrao hade and Bhaskar Gunje. The complaint also narrates that there were about 25 to 30 persons and some persons out of them had broken the diesel tank of the bus. It is thus, seen that the persons who are named as accused persons who are actually identified by the complainant and whose names are given in the complaint are Sahebrao and Baskar Gunje. In the evidence of PW-5 i. e. the complainant recorded before the Court what has come on record, as a crucial fact, is that the witness i. e. the complainant knows Suresh Hade, Sunil Hade and Bhaskar from over a period of 7 to 8 years. He further stated that he has wrongly mentioned the name of Sahebrao as present on the spot. However, this contradiction has not been purged by the prosecution in its evidence. ( 7 ) THE complainant also says that he has seen these persons in the available sunlight. The testimony of this witness is also self- contradictory on the point as to who hit diesel tank with axe and the manner in which the bus was set on fire. One can notice that this witness was horrified, however, this does not preclude him from correctly naming the person who was acquainted with him for over a period of 7 to 8 years. One can notice that this witness was horrified, however, this does not preclude him from correctly naming the person who was acquainted with him for over a period of 7 to 8 years. ( 8 ) THE reasons assigned by the learned Sessions Judge that the evidence of pw-5 Ashokappa is not clinching against the appellant No. 2, in fact, applies in toto to the evidence of PW complainant as far as present appellant is concerned in as much as this witness has deposed in extremely vague manner as to the name of the present appellant. The finding of the learned Sessions Judge holding the present appellant who was also appellant No. 1 before him as guilty on the ground that the prosecution evidence against him proved his involvement beyond doubt is thus, not based on sound reasons. Therefore, the present appellant too was entitled for the benefit of doubt even more than what appellant No. 2 before the Appellate Court was. ( 9 ) APART from the case being looked into with point of view of benefit of doubt rather this is a case where the prosecution witness i. e. complainant has failed to give details as to attribute against the present appellant. It has remained unexplained totally as to when the complainant was acquainted with the accused no. 1 for over a period of 7 to 8 years and has further factually to depose before the Court about the overt act on the part of the accused appellant as to why and in what circumstances accused appellant did the acts constituting offence. The complainant has not at all even named the appellant Suresh Hade in his complaint. ( 10 ) RESULT as follows is that the criminal Revision Application is allowed. Rule is made absolute in terms of prayer clause (A ). Revision application allowed.