JUDGMENT 1. - The appellant Kesha Ram has been convicted under Section 436 I.P.C. and has been sentenced to three years rigorous imprisonment and to a fine of Rs. 501/-, in default of payment of fine to undergo five months further imprisonment by the learned Sessions Judge, Pali by his judgment dated 22-8-74. 2. The prosecution story in brief is that the complainant Hira Lal was residing in his jhunpa on his field Bera Bamniya situated in village Dewli. On 2-10-73 at about 8 or 9 p.m., he was in his jhunpa and was lying on a cot. It is said that the accused came there and set his jhunpa to fire. Thereupon, he raised an alarm. His son Dadhmat, Mukna and Bhoma arrived there. He exhorted that the accused has set the jhunpa ablazed. On his alarm the accused had run away. After sometime Ganesh Chowkidar also arrived there. As a result of setting his jhunpa to fire, his belongings were burnt. A sum of Rs. 375/- was in the pocket of his coat. That was burnt. Efforts to extinguish fire were made but nothing could be saved. The report of the occurrence was lodged by the complainant Hira Lal on 3.10.73 at 10.30 a.m. at the Police Station, Jaitaran, which is at a distance of about more than 10 miles. On his report, case under section 436 I.P.O. was registered by Hari Singh, S.H.O. PW 6. Thereafter, the S.H.O. visited the spot and prepared the site plan and the site notes Ex. P. 2. He found the jhunpa in a burnt condition and ashes and live fire were present and at some places little smoke was also coming. From the site he seized two tins and one box which contained burnt flour etc. Investigation was then conducted from witnesses. 3. After completion of the investigation, charge sheet was presented against the accused in the Court of Munsif Magistrate, Jaitaran, who committed the case to the Sessions Judge, Pali for trial. The accused was charged for offence under section 436 I.P.C. to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. Prosecution in this case examined Hira Lal Brahman PW 1, Bhoma Kumhar PW 2, Sohan Singh Motbir of site inspection PW3, Ganesh PW 4, Dadhmat complainants son PW2 and Hari Singh S.H.O. PW6. 4. The statement of the accused was recorded under section 313 Cr. Prosecution in this case examined Hira Lal Brahman PW 1, Bhoma Kumhar PW 2, Sohan Singh Motbir of site inspection PW3, Ganesh PW 4, Dadhmat complainants son PW2 and Hari Singh S.H.O. PW6. 4. The statement of the accused was recorded under section 313 Cr. P. C, in which he denied the prosecution case and stated that the land of Bamniya Bera belonging to Hira Lal and Devdutt was sold by them to Mishrilal and he used to plough the land with tractor on behalf of Mishrilal. The complainant Hira Lal wanted to take over possession of the land. He has falsely implicated him so that he may not be able to go to the bera and in his absence, the complainant may enter into possession. 5. The accused examined Mishrilal in his defence as DW 1. 6. The learned Sessions Judge after hearing, convicted and sentenced the accused as aforesaid. Aggrieved against which the present appeal has been filed. 7. I have heard the learned counsel for the appellant and the learned Public Prosecutor for the State and perused the record of the case. 8. The learned counsel for the appellant contended that the learned Sessions Judge has not properly appreciated the evidence on record. The appellant has been falsely implicated on account of enmity with his employer Mishrilal. It was urged that there are discrepancies in the statement of Hira Lal and further, the evidence of Bhoma, Ganesh & Dadhmat is cooked up which would be evident from the discrepancies occurred in their statements, in case the statements of these three witnesses become incredible, it would not be safe to place implicit reliance on the sole testimony of Hira Lal. The learned counsel, therefore, urged that the prosecution has failed to prove the guilt against the accused beyond all reasonable doubt and so the accused deserves to be acquitted. 9. The learned public prosecutor on the other hand, supported the judgment of the learned Sessions Judge and urged that the evidence has been thoroughly scrutinised by the trial court, there are no reasons to disbelieve the testimony of Hira Lal corroborated by the statements of the three witnesses. Thus, there is ample evidence on record which establishes beyond all manner of doubt that the accused set the complainant's jhunpa to fire. The appellant has therefore, been rightly convicted. 10. Thus, there is ample evidence on record which establishes beyond all manner of doubt that the accused set the complainant's jhunpa to fire. The appellant has therefore, been rightly convicted. 10. Having heard both the parties, I am of the opinion that conviction of the appellant has been rightly recorded. In order to bring home the guilt to the appellant the prosecution places reliance on the statements of Hira Lal, Bhoma, Ganesh & Dadhmat coupled with the evidence of the S.H.O. Hira Lal has clearly stated that on the night of occurrence, he was in his jhunpa and then he heard some noise of feet, he came out and saw the accused igniting the jhunpa. His jhunpa was made of hay. As a result of ignition, the jhunpa was burnt and all his belongings were burnt thereby. When he raised hue and cry, the accused ran away and thereafter his son Dadhmat, Mukna and Bhoma arrived there. Ganesh chowkidar also came. One discrepancy which has been pointed out in his statement is that in the report, it is mentioned that the complainant was lying in an awakened condition, whereas in his trial statement, he stated that he was sitting on a cot inside his jhunpa. Another discrepancy pointed out is that in his trial statement, he stated that after hearing feet noise he came out but it is not so stated in his report Ex. PW 1 and police statement Ex-D 1. For both these discrepancies, Hira Lal has stated that they have occurred because he was perturbed. Apart from this explanation, in my opinion, these discrepancies are not very material. Another discrepancy which has been pointed out is that in his police statement, there is no mention that he raised cries "balere balere". For this omission as well he has stated that as he was perturbed so he did not state so. It may be mentioned that if whole of his statement is perused, it would be clear that nothing has come out on the basis of which the testimony of Hira Lal can be discredited. On the contrary, his statement gets corroboration from the First Information Report and from the statements of the three witnesses as from the statement of Hari Singh who has found fire & ashes on the spot and has observed that the belongings of the complainant had been burnt. On the contrary, his statement gets corroboration from the First Information Report and from the statements of the three witnesses as from the statement of Hari Singh who has found fire & ashes on the spot and has observed that the belongings of the complainant had been burnt. Ganesh, Bhoma & Dadhmat have stated that they heard the cries of Hira Lal, that Kesha has burnt the jhunpa and they had seen the accused running away through "seria". "Seria" falls on the way from jhunpa to the road and road is said to be at a distance of about 60 paundas. Ganesh PW4 has also seen the accused on the road. Ganesh & Bhoma appear to be independent witnesses. There was no reason for them to falsely implicate the accused. Bhoma & Dadhmat, reached the place of occurrence followed by Ganesh. Ganesh had seen fire and he has also stated that the complainant Hira Lal was shouting that Kesha has burnt the jhunpa. The statements of these witnesses have been criticized on the ground that according to Hira Lal the three witnesses appeared on the scene of occurrence after about 10 minutes whereas Ganesh appeared in an hour or half, where as according to the witnesses soon after the occurrence they reached the place of occurrence. Hira Lal is aged about 65 years. It appears from the statement that he has mentioned the time vaguely without having proper sense of time. Thus, on the basis of statement of Hira Lal, the testimony of these witnesses cannot be brushed aside. Another discrepancy which has been pointed out is that according to Hira Lal the witnesses Mukna, Bhoma & Dadhmat did not come through the Seria but came following the track of `dandi' whereas the witnesses have stated that they came through "seria". Both the witnesses saw the accused in the "seria". In my opinion, even on the basis of this discrepancy nothing would return. It may be that "seria" and dandi may be side by side. It has not been put to Hira Lal or to Bhoma and Dadhmat that how far is "dandi" from "seria". All the witnesses having uniformly stated that the accused was having a cycle and a lathi. It may be that "seria" and dandi may be side by side. It has not been put to Hira Lal or to Bhoma and Dadhmat that how far is "dandi" from "seria". All the witnesses having uniformly stated that the accused was having a cycle and a lathi. It was also urged that the witness Bhoma in his cross-examination has stated that the accused had a muffled face, so could not be identified but simultaneously, he has stated that in the light of flames, he could identify the accused despite the fact that the face of the accused was tied. Even if it is found that the accused was not identified by the witness, still Bhoma has categorically stated that complainant was shouting that Kesha has set the jhunpa on fire. It is true that three witnesses have not seen the accused igniting the jhunpa still all the three witnesses corroborate the complainant who named the accused to be the person who set the jhunpa to fire. Further, the statement of Hari Singh also corroborates Hira Lal's statement. It cannot be said that it is a case of accidental fire on the jhunpa for which the accused can be said to have been implicated and the question of deliberate fire by the complainant is inconceivable and is out of question. From the evidence on record, in my opinion, it is amply proved that it was the accused who set the jhunpa of the complainant to fire. As the occurrence took place in the night and the police station was at a distance and the complainant must have been disturbed on account of the occurrence so the report could not be lodged early. Thus, it is a satisfactory explanation for whatever delay which has been caused in lodging the First Information Report. I, therefore, concur with the finding of the learned Sessions Judge and hold that the appellant has been rightly convicted for offence under section 436 I. P. C. 11. The learned counsel for the appellant then submitted that parties have entered into compromise and so in sentence lenient view may be taken and compromise may be considered to be the mitigating circumstance as was considered by the Supreme Court in Ram Pujan and others v. State of Uttar Pradesh (AIR 1973 S. C. 2418) . The learned counsel for the appellant then submitted that parties have entered into compromise and so in sentence lenient view may be taken and compromise may be considered to be the mitigating circumstance as was considered by the Supreme Court in Ram Pujan and others v. State of Uttar Pradesh (AIR 1973 S. C. 2418) . In view of the compromise between the parties, I am inclined to take a lenient view. In my opinion, 3 months rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 1,500/- would be adequate. 12. In the result, this appeal is partly allowed. The conviction of the appellant is maintained under section 436 I. P. C. His sentence is reduced to 3 months rigorous imprisonment and he is further sentenced to a fine of Rs. 1,500/-. In default of payment of fine; he will undergo 6 months rigorous imprisonment. On deposit of fine a sum of Rs. 1,200/- shall be paid to the complainants son Dadhmat, as the complainant Hira Lal is reported to be dead. The appellant is on bail. He shall immediately surrender to serve out the sentence. On his failure to surrender, the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Pali shall effect his arrest to serve out the sentence.Appeal partly allowed. *******