ORDER Ashok Agarwal, J. - The appellant is original accused, who is a young lady, aged about 25 years old. She is a labourer and a resident of village Badole Budruk, Taluka Akkalkot, District Sholapur. She used to be employed along with P.W. 1 Shantabai, who is the complainant in the present case, for workil1g in the field of P.W. 6 Chandrabhagabai Malani. Since Chandrabhagabai required only one labourer she had dispensed the services of the accused and continued the services of Shantabai. Shantabai owns hut in Bhavaninagar Zopadpatti in the aforesaid village Badole Budruk. She however used to reside in the farm house of Chandtabhagabai which is located at a distance of about two miles from village' Badole Budruk. She, however, used to visit her hut in the village on a couple of times in a week for the purpose of cleaning the same. 2. The incident in question took place on the 6th of November, 1985 at about 2.30 p.m. At that time the accused is said to have lighted a match stick and set the house of Shantabai' ablaze. The walls of the hut were made of stems of Shindi. The same immediately caught fire causing damage to the hut and household articles. The incident was witnessed by P.W. 3 Laxmibai Kokare. Other neighbours who include P.W. 4 Appu Sular and P.W. 5 Jaharabi Shaikhal came on the scene soon after the hilt was set op fire. Both saw the accused passing by P.W. 4 Appu Sular informed P.W. 6 Chandrabhagabai that the accused had set fire on the hut of Shantabai. Chandrabhagabai in turn called Shantabai. Since he thought that Shantabai would get frightened if she informed her of the incident, she merely told her that some guest had come to her house and she should go there immediately. Shantabai, went to her hut and found that it was destroyed and the fire was already extinguished. She saw Laxmibai Jaharabi and other persons present at that place. On the next day Shantabai lodged her complaint (Ext. 8) at the Akkalkot North Police Station. The complaint was recorded by P.W. 8 Satish Devantgi, the P.S.I. attached to the said police station. Devantgi registered the offence and entrusted the investigation to P.W. 7 Pandit Deshmukh, Assistant Sub-Inspector of Police. Deshmukh drew a panchanama in regard to the scene of offence (Ext. 8) at the Akkalkot North Police Station. The complaint was recorded by P.W. 8 Satish Devantgi, the P.S.I. attached to the said police station. Devantgi registered the offence and entrusted the investigation to P.W. 7 Pandit Deshmukh, Assistant Sub-Inspector of Police. Deshmukh drew a panchanama in regard to the scene of offence (Ext. 10) in the presence of the panch witness P.W. 2 Mahadayya Swami. He recorded the statements of several witnesses including the aforesaid witnesses who have been examined in the present case. He searched for the accused but she was not found for a couple of days. He learnt that the accused had gone to Akkalkot. Hence, he went there. He found that the accused was going from motor stand to the town. He arrested her and thereafter submitted a charge-sheet against the accused. On the aforesaid facts, the accused was charged in the Court of the 5th Additional Sessions Judge, Sholapur in Sessions Case No. 68 of 1986 under section 436 of the Indian Penal Code for having, on the 6th of November, 1985 at about 2.30 p.m. at village Mauje Badole Budruk, Taluka Akkalkot committed mischief by setting fire to the residential hut of the complainant Shantabai. 3. The accused pleaded not guilty. Her defence is one of total denial. According to her, she was not present at the time of the alleged incident. She had gone to Akkalkot in the company of her maternal uncle DW. 1 Shankar Birajdar. According to her, the prosecution witnesses had given false evidence against her on the say of Raosaheb Dhigude who had obtained a loan of Rs. 2,500 from her in the presence of Shantabai. The accused had demanded the return of the amount from Raosaheb in the presence of Shantabaio Raosaheb had not returned the amount. Hence, Shantabai and other witnesses had deposed against her at the instance Raosaheb. The accused has further suggested that the incident in question had taken place a few days before Diwali. According to the accused, children might have exploded crackers and due to that the hut of the complainant might have caught fire. 4. Hence, Shantabai and other witnesses had deposed against her at the instance Raosaheb. The accused has further suggested that the incident in question had taken place a few days before Diwali. According to the accused, children might have exploded crackers and due to that the hut of the complainant might have caught fire. 4. The learned judge of the trial Court accepted the evidence of the prosecution witnesses and by ORDER and order dated the 12th of June, 1986 the accused was convicted under section 436 of the Indian Penal Code and was sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for eighteen months and to pay a fine of Rs. 150, in default to suffer further rigorous imprisonment for one month. The said order of conviction and sentence is impugned in the present appeal 5. Miss Baxi, the learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the accused, has taken me through the entire evidence on record. She has submitted that the accused had no motive to commit the present offence. She has pointed out that Shantabai was not residing in the village but was residing in a hut belonging to her employer Chandrabhagabai in the field. She submitted that it, therefore, cannot be said that the hut in question is a dwelling house. She has, therefore, submitted that the instant offence cannot fall within the four comers of section 436 of the Indian Penal Code. She further submitted that the hut in question is located in a Zopadpatti. It is surrounded by number of huts. She, therefore, contended that Laxmibai may not have witnessed that the accused had set fire to the hut as she claims. 6. I have given due consideration to the submissions advanced en behalf of the accused. In my view, it is not possible to discard the evidence of the prosecution on the grounds suggested by Miss Baxi. I find that the evidence of the prosecution witnesses is cogent, consistent, trustworthy and worthy of credence. P.W. 3 Laxmibai is an eye-witness to the incident. She has deposed in' terms of the case of the prosecution, which I have already reproduced. Her presence at the scene of offence is natural. She resides in a hut which is located at a distance of about 50 ft. from the house of Shantabai. She was combing her hair in front of the house of one Namdeo Salgar. She has deposed in' terms of the case of the prosecution, which I have already reproduced. Her presence at the scene of offence is natural. She resides in a hut which is located at a distance of about 50 ft. from the house of Shantabai. She was combing her hair in front of the house of one Namdeo Salgar. This is typical of woman folk of villages for combing hair in the open during the winter season. She saw the accused lighting a match stick and setting fire to the wall of the hut of Shantabai. She raised hue and cry which brought the neighbours on the scene. The neighbours include P.W. 4 Appu Sutar and P.W. 5 Jaharabai Shaikhlal. All of them extinguished the fire with water. Laxmibai told them that the accused had set fire to the hut of Shantabai. Though Laxmibai was cross-examined at some length, no material has been elicitated so as to cast a doubt on her testimony. In cross-examination she has admitted that there is a crowd of huts around the hut of the complainant. She has further stated that the hut of Namdeo Salgar where she was-combing her hair is at a distance of about 50 ft. from the hut of Shantabai. She has denied that the hut of Shantabai is not visible from the hut of Namdeo Salgar. The witness knew accused since prior to the date of the incident and that is natural as both are the residents of the same village. She has denied that defence suggestion that the fire took place on account of blowing of crackers. She has further stated that though the neighbours gathered on her raising hue and cry, the accused was not caught by anybody as she was a lady. A contention is advanced on the basis of the above statement that the neighbours were gathered included women. If really the accused had set fire to the hut of Shantabai they would have apprehended her. In my view, the mere fact that the neighbours did not immediately apprehend the accused does not necessarily lead to a conclusion that the entire evidence of the prosecution witnesses is suspect. The person aggrieved whose hut was set on fire, was Shantabai. She was not present on the scene. The neighbours who gathered thought of extinguishing the fire. That was their first priority. The person aggrieved whose hut was set on fire, was Shantabai. She was not present on the scene. The neighbours who gathered thought of extinguishing the fire. That was their first priority. Hence, merely because the accepted was not apprehended on the spot cannot cast a doubt on the veracity of the evidence of the prosecution witnesses. 7. The evidence of Laxmibai finds corroboration through the evidence of P.W. 4 Appu Sutar. Appu Sutar resides at a distance of about 300 ft. from the hut of Shantabai. At the relevant time he was sitting in his house. He heard hue and cry of Laxmibai. Laxmibai was shouting that the accused set fire to the hut of Shantabai. He, as also others, rushed to the hut and extinguished the fire. He saw the accused passing by the road. One Bajirao asked him to go and inform Shantabai and to call her. Hence, he went to the field of Chandrabahagabai. Shantabai was not present there. He informed Chandrabhagabai that the hut Of Shantabai was set on fire and requested her to sent Shantabai to her hut. The evidence of Appu Sutar is, therefore consistent and lends assurance to the evidence of Laxmibai. 8. The evidence of the aforesaid two witnesses is corroborated by the evidence of P.W. 5 Jaharabi Shaikhlal. On the day in question, she saw the accused passing from the side of her house. She asked her where she was going. The accused told her that she was going towards the lower side of the village for work. The witness sat in her house. Laxmibai informed her that a house behind the house of the witness had blown up in flames. Some people assembled there and they extinguished the fire. The evidence of Jaharabai fixed the presence of the accused at about the place and time of the incident in question. Her evidence also supports the fact that the house of Shantabai was found ablaze soon after she had seen accused go by. 9. The evidence of the aforesaid witnesses find further corroboration from the evidence of P.W. 6 Chandrabhagabai. She was informed of the incident by Appu Sutar. Appu Sutar came to her and told her that house of Shantabai was destroyed by fire. He asked her to sent Shantabai to her house. Chandrabhagabai in turn called Shantabai. 9. The evidence of the aforesaid witnesses find further corroboration from the evidence of P.W. 6 Chandrabhagabai. She was informed of the incident by Appu Sutar. Appu Sutar came to her and told her that house of Shantabai was destroyed by fire. He asked her to sent Shantabai to her house. Chandrabhagabai in turn called Shantabai. She, however, told her that some guest had come to her house. She did so because she thought that Shantabai would get frightened if she immediately broke the news. 10. In my view, the above evidence can safely be relied upon for bringing home the guilt against the accused. 11. The defence has examined D.W. 1 Shankar Birajdar who is none else but the maternal uncle of the accused. According to the witness he along with the accused had gone to Akkalkot for shopping in the morning, for purchasing articles for Diwali. They left for Akkalkot by bus at 8.00 a.m. The accused went to Akkalkot on that date to stay in the house of her mother's sister for three of four days. After shopping, the witness came back. In the cross-examination the witness admitted that on Chapter case is pending against him and his brother. He executed a bond of good behaviour in that proceeding. In my view, the evidence of Shankar cannot be classified as the evidence of an independent witness. He is highly interested in the accused. It is possible that he has deposed in Court in order to oblige the accused. The evidence of the witness cannot out weigh the evidence of the prosecution witnesses who are found to be independent witnesses, and who have no grouse against the accused. Moreover, Akkalkot is located at a distance of about 15 kms. from village Badole. Buses as also trucks ply. One can cover the distance within 40 to 45 minutes. I, therefore, find that the evidence led by the defence does not satisfactorily establish the plea of alibi raised by the accused. 12. It is true that the prosecution has not brought on record any motive which could have prompted the accused to have committed the crime. That, however, cannot dilute the effect of the evidence of the witnesses of the prosecution whose evidence is found to be cogent and trustworthy. 12. It is true that the prosecution has not brought on record any motive which could have prompted the accused to have committed the crime. That, however, cannot dilute the effect of the evidence of the witnesses of the prosecution whose evidence is found to be cogent and trustworthy. Though Shantabai was residing in the farm house of Chandrabhagabai which is located in her field, it cannot be concluded on that ground that the hut of Shantabai located in the village had ceased to be dwelling house. Shantabai used in visit her hut in the village couple of times in a week for the purpose of cleaning the same. A suggestion was put to Chandrabhagabai in the cross-examination that Shantabai used to keep her household articles in her house in the field. The suggestion was made in order to prove that the hut of Shantabai in the village had ceased to be dwelling house. Chandrabhagabai, however, indicate that Shantabai used to keep her household articles in her house in the field. This would indicate that Shantabai was residing in the farm house for the purpose of performing her duties in the field. She continued to have her household articles in her hut in the village. In this context, a reference can be made to the panchanama in regard to the scene of offence (Ext. 10). The said panchanama recites that the articles of daily use in the house were noticed to have been scattered and found to have been damaged. The panchanama is proved in the evidence of P.W. 2 Mahadayya Swami and it is pertinent to note that the witness has not even been cross-examined in respect of the contents of the panchanama. It is not possible to accept the contention of Miss Baxi that the prosecution has failed to prove that the house in question is a dwelling house so as to attract the mischief of section 436, I.P. Code. 13. For the foregoing reasons I hold that the prosecution has proved, beyond reasonable doubt, that the accused has committed the instant crime which is punishable under section 436 of the Indian Penal Code. 14. At this stage, Miss Baxi has made a fervent plea that the accused should be shown leniency. The accused is a young lady, aged 25 years. She is a poor labourer. She was initially employed with Chandrabhagabai but had lost her job. 14. At this stage, Miss Baxi has made a fervent plea that the accused should be shown leniency. The accused is a young lady, aged 25 years. She is a poor labourer. She was initially employed with Chandrabhagabai but had lost her job. She submitted that no useful purpose will be served by sending this young woman to jail particularly after a lapse of over seven years from the date of the incident. She has suggested that the sentence of fine may be enhanced and a part of the fine could be paid over to Shantabai by way of compensation. She h3s waived the service of the notice of enhancement of sentence on behalf of the accused. I have heard Miss Baxi and also Shri Palekar on the question of sentence. The accused has already undergone detention of two days during the course of investigation. Hence, the requirement of passing a sentence of imprisonment has been met by the sentence which she has already undergone during investigation. In my view, the following order will meet the ends of justice. 15. The impugned order of conviction passed against the accused under section 436 of the Indian Penal Code is affirmed. The substantive sentence imposed upon the accused is reduced to the one already undergone. The fine is, however, enhanced. The accused will pay a fine of Rs. 2,500 in default to suffer further rigorous imprisonment for three months. Out of the fine, if recovered, a sum of Rs. 2,000/- paid to PW 1 Shantabai Talwar by way of compensation under section 357, Cr. P. Code. The accused is granted three months time to pay the fine. Appeal is partly allowed. In the event of default in payment of fine within the aforesaid stated period the accused will surrender to her bail. On payment of fine within the said period, her bail bonds shall stand cancelled. Appeal allowed partly.