Judgment : 1. This revision is preferred against two concurrent judgments of the Courts below convicting the petitioner for an offence under Section 436 IPC and sentencing him to undergo three years rigorous imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.500/-in default three months simple imprisonment. 2. The prosecution case was that this accused, angered by PW-1 objecting to the accused having an illicit relationship with his sister, set the thatched roof of PW-1's house on fire on 27.05.2002 at about 3.30 hours. Upon the complaint of the de facto complainant, a case was registered in Crime No.94 of 2002 on the file of the respondent. Pursuant to investigation, a charge sheet was filed. The petitioner was charged of offence under section 436 IPC in case tried in S.C.No.54 of 2002 on the file of learned Assistant Sessions Judge, Pondicherry. 3. Before the trial Court, the prosecution examined seven witnesses, marked five exhibits and five material objects. One witness was examined on behalf of the defence and no exhibits were marked. 4. On appreciation of materials before it, the trial Court rendered a finding of conviction and sentenced the petitioner/accused to undergo three years rigorous imprisonment and fine of Rs.500/- in default three months simple imprisonment. The appeal of the petitioner in C.A.No.49 of 2006 came to be dismissed by learned Principal Sessions Judge, Puducherry, under judgment dated 14.11.2007. There against, this revision. 5. Heard learned counsel for petitioner and learned Government Advocate (Puducherry). 6. The present is a case of circumstantial evidence wherein the possibility of false implication looms large for the following reasons: i. As against the First Information Report informing that the complainant being unable to sleep was tossing about and noticed the roof on fire, his evidence in cross was that he was outside the house, answering the call of nature, when he noticed the same. It is the evidence of DW-1, sister of PW-1 that PW-1 owed monies to the accused and upon the accused demanding the same, PW1 informed that he was only in the habit of receiving and not repaying and that he would see to it that the accused did not come by. It is her evidence that the accused, a milk vendor, had stopped milk supplies to her brother's house, of which she was a resident and upon making enquiry she came to know of the present case. It is her evidence that the accused, a milk vendor, had stopped milk supplies to her brother's house, of which she was a resident and upon making enquiry she came to know of the present case. Denying the illicit relationship, DW-1 has deposed to PW-2 being her cousin and PW-4 being her sister's husband. The relationship informed by her has not even been sought to be disproved in cross conducted by the prosecution. It is the admission of PW-1 that he and PW-3 were co-accused in a case of molestation of a woman. ii. PWs.2 and 3 are the persons who are said to have chased and caught the petitioner/accused, who was making a get away on his cycle. While it is the evidence of PW-2 that he saw the accused 200 mts. away from the house of PW-1, in the dead of night, it is the evidence of PW-3 that the cycle was in good condition. Both PWs.2 and 3 have stated that the petitioner/accused dropped the cycle and started running. A combined reading of evidence of PWs.2 and 3 would inform a most improbable version of a person well placed in the dark, 200 mtrs. away, choosing not to ride away on a cycle fit for use. The defence case of the petitioner having been secured at his place of work the next day, cannot easily be brushed aside. iii. Importantly, PW-6, the then Sub-Inspector of Police, Thirunallar Police Station, had admitted to causing photographs of the scene through one Murugesan and that neither he nor the Inspector of Police examined such person. Thus, the only exhibits viz., photographs, which substantially would point to the occurrence, have not been produced before Court nor as the concerned photographer been examined. 7. Given the various discrepancies in the prosecution case informed above, the Courts below have fallen into error in convicting the petitioner. This Criminal Revision shall stand allowed. The judgment of learned Principal Sessions Judge, Puducherry, passed in C.A.No.49 of 2006 on 14.11.2007 confirming the judgment of learned Assistant Sessions Judge cum Chief Judicial Magistrate, Puducherry, passed in S.C.No.54 of 2002 on 17.04.2006 shall stand set aside. The petitioner is acquitted of all charges. Fine amount, if any, paid by the petitioner shall be refunded to him.