Short Note : 1. The prosecution case briefly stats is that on 1-4-77 Sunderlal (PW 1) had gone to the weekly market at Kalangi from where he returned back in the evening What is said is that at about 4 p.m. on 1-4-77 Satanbai (PW 2) made her daughter leelabai sleep in the house and she was sitting outside. At that time appellant chained the doors from outside, locked it and kept the key with him. Inspite of Satanbai having repeatedly told to open the lock, as her daughter was inside. the appellant did not open it but demanded Rs. 40 from her. Appellant, however, left the place and went away. 2. After sometime I e. at about 5 p. m. Sunderlal returned back and so Satanbai narrated this incident to him It is said that Sunderlal then started digging a hole in a wall by a pick-axe so that he could bring out Leelabai who had by then been awakened. When Sunderlal was in the process of digging the hole appellant came there with an axe, threatened Sunderlal and snatched the pick-axe from him. The child was however, taken out by Sunderlal through that hole. 3. Appellant on going away from there again returned back. By. bamboo, on an end 'of which he had wrapped a piece of cloth and had set \t to fire, he set the cattle shed of Sunderlal to fire with the burnings end of the bamboo, with the result that the cattle shed was burnt. According to Sunderlal the agricultural implements fire-wood, grains and clothes etc. which were lying there were burnt. He has given the estimate of loss to be about Rs.4,000. 4. Held: Potan (PW 4) in his evidence stated about the quarrel in between the appellant on the one side and Sundrelal and his wife Satanbai (PW 2) on the other side. Hearing this he came outside of his house. He also states that in the quarrel Sunderlal and his wife had made the allegation against the appellant that the latter had put his lock on the. door with child being inside. He also states to have heard the appellant demanding his money. Hearing this he came outside of his house. He also states that in the quarrel Sunderlal and his wife had made the allegation against the appellant that the latter had put his lock on the. door with child being inside. He also states to have heard the appellant demanding his money. He actually saw the doors being locked from outside and even heard the weeping noise of the child from inside the house in-spite of the persuasions of this witness appellant refused to open the lock till his money was paid. It was in his presence that Sunderlal had dug the hole in the wall and bad taken out the child from that hole. 5. As regards the house being set at fire we have the evidence of Sundtrlal (PW 1) Satanbai (PW 2) and Potan (PW 4). Their evidence is quite consistent on the question that it was the appellant who on having seen that without paying the money the child has been taken out, had set the house to fire. Sunderlal's evidence is sufficiently corroborated by the First Information Report (Ex P- l), that was lodged soon after the incident. Even the appellant has not disputed that the house was burnt. Potan (PW 4) has stated that since his cattle shed is just adjoining to the portion which was set at fire, that had to be severed by cutting the timber in the shed, the Tattas and the titles etc. This was done to avoid his cattle shed also catching the fire In cross-examination of Potan (PW 4) it has come that he is not on talking terms with the appellant. The reasons given by him is that since the appellant and his brother used to quarrel and he had intervened, the appellant did not behave with him properly. This would hardly be a reason for Potan to falsely implicate the appellant. 6. Sub-Inspector, Ghanshyam Sharma (PW 7) has stated that on 2-4-77 a key, from amongst other articles was seized on an information given by the appellant Seizure Memo of the key is Ex P-7. The information and the seizure memo, have been proved even by Potan (PW 4). The lock was opened by this key. This also substantially lends assurance to the prosecution story. 7. The information and the seizure memo, have been proved even by Potan (PW 4). The lock was opened by this key. This also substantially lends assurance to the prosecution story. 7. In my opinion, therefore, the fact of the appellant having locked the house with the child Leelabai being inside and his having set a portion of the house to fire has been abundantly proved. He has, therefore, rightly been found guilty for offences under sections 342 and 436 of the Indian Penal Code I find no reasons to take a further lenient view even on the question of sentence. Appeal dismissed.