JUDGMENT 1. - The appellant in this case has been convicted of the charge of mischief by setting fire to the residential hut of his brother-in-law Sohanlal, punishable under section 436 I.P.C. He has been sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for one year and a fine of Rs. 500/-, or in default, further rigorous imprisonment for six months. 2. It is alleged that the appellant ill-treated his wife Jana PW and expelled her from the matrimonial home a few days before the occurrence. She took up residence at her parents' house after her expulsion from the matrimonial home. The appellant visited the House of his parents-in-law a few days prior to the occurrence and asked Jana to return to the matrimonial home with him. She refused to comply with his wishes. He threatened her that he would kill the entire family be setting fire to their hut. 3. The prosecution story further goes that on February 12,1981, at 8 p.m. the appellant set fire to the hut of Sohanlal,brother of Jana. Sohanlal's mother Mst. Lali raised hues and cry. Many persons including Nathu, Birdha, Kalyan, Govinda and Kajod rushed to the scene of occurrence and saw Sohanlal's hut burning and the appellant running away from there. 4. A report of the occurrence was lodged with the police on February 13, 1981. 5. During the trial, the prosecution examined 12 witnesses including Jana, Nathu, Birdha, Kalyan, Sohanlal and Kajod. Except for Birdha, and Kajod, who were declared, hostile, all other witnesses fully supported the prosecution case. 6. Relying on the evidence produced by the prosecution the learned Sessions Judge, Jaipur, District, Jaipur, found the appellant guilty of the charge punishable under section 436 I.P.C. and convicted and sentenced him as mentioned at the out set of this judgment. 7. Mr. Sharma, learned counsel for the appellant has not seriously questioned the order of conviction recorded against the appellant by the court of session. It will be seen that there is satisfactory evidence on record to prove that the appellant had threatened his wife Jana a few days before the occurrence that he would set fire to the hut of her father and that he was actually seen running away from the scene of occurrence on February 12, 1981, at about 8 p.m. immediately after setting fire to the hut. PWs1. PWs1. Jana and Sohanlal have testified to the threats uttered by the appellant a few days before the occurrence., that since Jana was adamant in her refusal to go back to the matrimonial home he would set fire to her parents' house and kill them. PWs. Jana, Sohanlal Nathu, and Govinda have stated that they saw, the appellant running away from the scene of occurrence after they saw the hut in flames. 8. There is no reason why PWs. Jana, Nathu, Kalyan, Sohanlal and Govinda be disbelieved. The accused did not produce any evidence in defence. 9. It will thus be seen that the offence under section 436 I.P.C. stands proved against the appellant. His appeal against the order of conviction must therefore fail. 10. Having regard to the fact that the appellant is brother-in-law of the complainant Sohanlal and taking into consideration the possibility of re- conciliation between the appellant and his wife Jana, I am of the opinion that a lenient view should be taken in the matter of sentence. 11. The appellant has already been in Jail for the last more than 8 months. The sentence should in my opinion be reduced to the term of imprisonment already undergone by the appellant. I would accordingly partly allow this appeal. The order of conviction passed against the appellant under section 436 I.P.C.is maintained. The order of sentence is modified and the sentence is reduced to the term of imprisonment already undergone by the appellant. The appellant is in jail. He shall be released forthwith if not required to be detained in any other case.Appeal Partly Allowed. *******