Judgment P.K.Deb, J. 1. This appeal has been preferred against the judgment and order dated 11-4-1987 passed by 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Nawadah in Sessions trial No. 629/1984 (18/1988) convicting the accused appellant under Section 436 of the, IPC and sentencing him to rigorous imprisonment for five years. 2. The prosecution case, in brief, is that on 10-7-1982 at village Mirjapur within the Police Station and district of Nawadah in the day hours at about 11 a.m. the appellant sprinkled kerosine and then set-fire to the thatched house of informant Bhagwan Choudhary by litting a matches resulting into complete burning of the residential house including house hold articles like grain, clothings, choukis and cash worth about Rs.1000/- was damaged. It is also the case that the adjacent house belonging to Rabindra Kumar Yadav also caught fire from the same flame and was reduced to ashes. The First Information Report was lodged by PW-1 on the very same date and after investigation charge-sheet was submitted under Section 436, IPC. The defence case is the denial of the prosecution case and that the accused appellant has been implicated falsely due to enmity. 3. On being committed to the Court of Sessions the charges were framed under Section 436, IPC against the accused appellant to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. For and on behalf of the prosecution as many as six witnesses have been examined out of whom PW-2 Md. Nizamuddin is a formal witness. PW-1 Bhagwan Chaudhary is the Informant. He is not eye-witness of the occurrence but on seeing the flame from other side of the rivulet rushed to the place of occurrence and learnt from his wife that it was the accused appellant who had caused arson in his residential house. He alongwith his co-villagers tried to extinguish fire but because of the paucity of water the flames could not be extinguished rather the fire had also destroyed the neighbouring house of Rabindra Yadav. PW-3 Bhaso Devi is the wife of the informant and the sole eye-witness to the actual occurrence. PW-4 Mahendra Kumar is a Kiryadar at the neighbouring house belonging to Rabindra Yadav. Because of the fire his rented house had also been burnt to ashes and all his valuables including his books and wearing apparels had also been burnt down. He has supported the prosecution case. PW-4 Mahendra Kumar is a Kiryadar at the neighbouring house belonging to Rabindra Yadav. Because of the fire his rented house had also been burnt to ashes and all his valuables including his books and wearing apparels had also been burnt down. He has supported the prosecution case. PW-5 Rabindra Yadav is the owner of the neighbouring house whose house was also burnt by the same flame. PW-6 Udeshwar Prasad Sinha is the investigating Officer. 4. The prosecution case is practically based on the sole-testimony of PW-4 who happened to be the sole eye-eyewitness from the beginning. According to her she came out of the house for the purpose of fetching water then she saw the accused appellant having a bottle full with kerosene oil and the match box in his hand and then and thereby sprinkling kerosene on the thatched house the accused appellant lit his match, as a result of which the whole house was burnt and the flame had also reached the neighbour house of Rabindra Yadav which was also burnt to ashes. In cross-examination of this eye-witness nothing could be brought for dislodging from her statement implicating the accused-appellant rather the cross-examination fitted the prosecution case more tight. PW-4 and PW-5 have also supported the prosecution case to the effect that it was accused appellant who had caused arson although from their evidence it could be found that they were not actual witness to the lighting (Sic) of the match and setting the house on fire. They came out after the flames were raised but their implication of the accused appellant in the offence has not been challenged in the cross-examination. Investigating Officer PW-6 found the ashes and also burnt materials in the house, so the prosecution case has been well proved against the accused appellant. On independent scrutiny of the evidence on record, I am of the same opinion as that of the learned Sessions Judge that the case has been proved beyond all reasonable doubt against the accused appellant. 5. In the result the appeal fails and the impugned judgment of conviction is hereby confirmed. On the point of sentence it has been submitted by the learned Counsel appearing for and on behalf of the accused-appellant that the case is of the year 1982 and almost 17 years have passed, in the meantime, and a lenient view should be taken against the accused-appellant. On the point of sentence it has been submitted by the learned Counsel appearing for and on behalf of the accused-appellant that the case is of the year 1982 and almost 17 years have passed, in the meantime, and a lenient view should be taken against the accused-appellant. Considering his sufference both mentally, physically and financially because of the continuance of the criminal prosecution for a long time and also the mental agony and tension regarding the prangs of the criminal case hanging over the head of the accused appellant for these period. There is some sub-stance in the submission of the learned Counsel appearing for and on behalf of the accused appellant. Considering that aspect alone the sentence imposed by the learned Court below is hereby altered to R.I. for one year and to pay a fine of Rs. 5,000/- (five thousand) to be deposited within four weeks next from this date before the Sessions Judge in default to undergo simple imprisonment for six months more. The period undergone shall be set off from the sentence passed against the appellant. The appeal is thus, dismissed with modification in the sentence as mentioned above. Fine if relieved (sic-realised) should go in favour of the PW-1 and PWs. 4 and 5 as compensation.