M. D. BHATT, J. ( 1 ) THIS issue appeal preferred from jail, by the accused Sakharam who on his conviction under Section 436, I. P. C. has been sentenced to three years RI. ( 2 ) ON the intervening night of 13th and 14th April, 1984, the appellant-accused was stated to have set fire to the hut of his father Ramlal by throwing a lighted match-stick on the thatched roof of the hut, resulting in the destruction of the said residential hut and so also the neighbouring huts of Chhotelal, Sabulal and Rupayabai. Incident was witnessed by quite a few persons of the village. Report of the incident was lodged on the next day by Chhotelal, (Ex. P-5 ). After due investigation, the appellant-accused was put up for trial. He claimed to be falsely implicated. No defence evidence was adduced regarding his plea that, at the relevant time, he was in his field. The trial Court, relying on the evidence of Chhotelal and other eye-witnesses, convicted and sentenced the appellant-accused to the extent as stated at the outset. Hence, now, the present appeal. ( 3 ) ADVOCATE Mrs. Mann, appearing as Amicus Curiae for the appellant-accused, has candidly stated at the outset that she does not press the order of conviction and only prays for reduction of sentence, inasmuch as, the appellant-accused has already remained in jail for a period of one year six months and 14 days. ( 4 ) ON scrutiny of the evidence on record, the order of conviction is found to be well merited, considering the eye-witness account of P. W. 6 Chhotelal, which is not only corroborated by his FIR. but is actually corroborated by the evidence of other eye-witnesses P. W. 4 Tulsiram, P. W. 5 Jabarsingh and P. W. 10 Manglu. There are no material inconsistencies in their averments so as to discredit their oral testimonies. Their evidence clearly shows that not only the hut of Ramlal but also the neighbouring huts of Sabulal, Chhotelal and Rupayabai were burnt down and the goods of those huts were also burnt down, resulting in loss of movables and other properties, worth a couple of thousand. Their evidence clearly shows that not only the hut of Ramlal but also the neighbouring huts of Sabulal, Chhotelal and Rupayabai were burnt down and the goods of those huts were also burnt down, resulting in loss of movables and other properties, worth a couple of thousand. ( 5 ) SO far as the question of sentence is concerned, I am of the view that the sentence of imprisonment already undergone is quite sufficient to meet the ends of justice in view of the fact that the appellant-accused is a person belonging to Scheduled Tribe and is a labour by profession; and as such, is not in a position to pay the fine amount, in case any sentence of fine instead, is levied against him. ( 6 ) IN the result, thus, the appeal is partially allowed. Maintaining the conviction of the appellant-accused under Section 436, I. P. C. and setting aside the order of sentence as passed by the trial Court, it is ordered instead, that the appellant-accused be and is now sentenced to imprisonment already undergone. The appellant-accused be released forthwith from jail, if no longer required in any other case. Appeal partly allowed. .