JUDGMENT P.K. Musahary, J. 1. Heard Mr. D.C. Roy, learned Counsel for the Appellants and also heard Mr. R.C. Debnath, learned Special Public Prosecutor for the State of Tripura. None appears for the Appellant in Crl. Appeal No. 57 of 2003. 2. In both these appeals, the Appellants have challenged the common judgment and conviction dated 30.11.2001 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, West Tripura, Khowai in connection with case No. S.T. 38 (WT/K)/2001 convicting the Appellants under Section 436, IPC to suffer R.I. for 10 years and to pay fine of Rs. 3,000 in default, to suffer further R.I. for 2 months for commission of offence under Section 436, IPC and further sentence for 2 years under Section 148 of the IPC and both the sentence will run concurrently. 3. The prosecution case in short, as revealed from the FIR is that on 17.12.2000 at about 9.45 AM, a group of 40 to 45 members of National Liberation Front of Tripura ('NLFT') came to the house of the informant and when he saw the said group of extremists, he fled away from his house and hide in a bush and not finding him in his house, his house was set on fire and as a result, his house was completely gutted and the informant sustained a loss of Rs. 10 lakhs The said extremists group also went to the house of one, Arun Debbarma and when they did not find him, they set fire in his house causing loss of Rs. 1,50,000. A written information was lodged by the informant with the Officer-in-Charge, Kalyanpur P.S. at 16:05 hrs. on the same day and on the basis of the said information, a crime being Kalyanpur P.S. Case No. 107 of 2000 was registered under Sections 148 / 149 / 436 of IPC and Section 27 of the Arms Act. 4. On completion of the investigation, the police laid charge sheet against 10 accused-persons including the main accused in the FIR namely, Usha Rn. Debbarma, Bikash Debbarma, Mangal Debbarma, Pijush Debbarma, Pradip Debbarma, Pandit Debbarma, Bijoy Debbarma, Sailen @ Sailendra Debbarma, Barun Debbarma and Narendra Debbarma under Sections 148 / 149 / 436, IPC read with Section 27 of the Arms Act against accused persons namely, Usha Rn. Debbarma, Bikash Debbarma, Mangal Debbarma, Pijush Debbarma, Pradip Debbarma, Pandit Debbarma and Bijoy Debbarma as absconder. Debbarma, Bikash Debbarma, Mangal Debbarma, Pijush Debbarma, Pradip Debbarma, Pandit Debbarma, Bijoy Debbarma, Sailen @ Sailendra Debbarma, Barun Debbarma and Narendra Debbarma under Sections 148 / 149 / 436, IPC read with Section 27 of the Arms Act against accused persons namely, Usha Rn. Debbarma, Bikash Debbarma, Mangal Debbarma, Pijush Debbarma, Pradip Debbarma, Pandit Debbarma and Bijoy Debbarma as absconder. The charges were read over and explained to the accused-persons to which, they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. The learned trial court framed charges against 05 accused-persons. The prosecution examined as many as 12 witnesses including PW 12, S.I. of Police, Kalyanpur P.S. who was the I.O. of the case. 5. PW-1 is the informant, Parendra Debbarma, whose house was set on fire and completely gutted. In his deposition he maintained the statement/allegation made in the written FIR. He has categorically stated in his deposition and also in the FIR that he could identify the accused Usha Ranjan Debbarma, Pijush Debbarma, Bikash Debbarma, Mangal Debbarma, Sailen Debbarma, Barun Debbarma, Pradip Debbarma, Dhiru Lal Debbarma & Pandit Debbarma, as he was hiding in a bush and could see the incident. In the cross-examination, the defence made no attempt to ascertain from the witnesses as to how he could identify these accused-persons. 6. PW-2, Ram Charan Debbarma deposed that on 17.12.2000 at about 9.30 AM, he was playing chess with Kantamani Debbarma (PW 3) in a tea stall situated in front of the informant's house and at that time about 40 NLFT members came to the shop and one of the members named Usha Ranjan Debbarma put his riffle on his chest and enquired about the informant. This witness categorically stated that he could identify Usha Ranjan Debbarma, Pradip Debbarma, Mangal Debbarma, Bikash Debbarma and Pandit Debbarma. He did not name Pijush Debbarma as an accused. PW 3, Kantamani Debbarma corroborated the statement of PW 2 as he was playing Chess with PW 2 and he could also identify the accused-persons. PW 3 is the brother of the informant and this witness also identified the accused Sailen Debbarma, Barun Debbarma, Mangal Debbarma and Pijush Debbarma in the dock during trial. PW 4, Arun Debbarma is not an eyewitness as he was, at that time, in the market and his wife Smt. Sabita Debbarma was present in his house and she has been examined as PW 10. PW 4, Arun Debbarma is not an eyewitness as he was, at that time, in the market and his wife Smt. Sabita Debbarma was present in his house and she has been examined as PW 10. He simply came to know about the incident from his wife and his wife told him that she could identify the accused Pandit Debbarma, Usha Debbarma and Pijush Debbarma. Subsequently, he came to know that accused Pradip Debbarma, Sailen Debbarma, Mangal Debbarma and Dim Debbarma were also members of the miscreants. Incidentally, it has been revealed in the deposition of PW 4 that the house of this witness was also set on fire by the said extremists party and he sustained a loss of Rs. 1,50,000, PW 5, Pradip Debbarma owned a grocery shop-cum-tea stall by the side of the house of the informant. He deposed that while he was in the shop, Kantamani Debbarma (PW 3) and Ram Charan Debbarma (PW 2) were playing Chess at about 9.45 AM on the day of occurrence. A group of 40/45 extremists of NLFT came near his shop and some of them gheroed his shop and he saw that some of the extremists entered into the house of the informant and set his house on fire. He also categorically stated that he could identify Usha Debbarma, Bikash Debbarma, Mangal Debbarma and Barun Debbarma as members of the extremists group. During trial, this witness could identify the accused Barun Debbarma in the dock. 7. PW 6, Kiran Mala Debbarma is the sister of PW 4, Arun Debbarma and a co-villager of the informant. According to her, the members of extremists group came to enquire about the informant and when the informant was not available, they set his house on fire as a result of which his house was completely gutted. She also stated that the said extremist party attacked her house also and set it on fire, as they did not find her brother, Arun Debbarma (PW 4) at home. She is not an eyewitness but deposed on the basis of information she received from PW, 10, Sabita Debbarma, her sister-in-law who told her about the incident and identity of the accused Pijush Debbarma, Bamn Debbarma, Bikash Debbarma and Sailen Debbarma as the members of extremist party. She is not an eyewitness but deposed on the basis of information she received from PW, 10, Sabita Debbarma, her sister-in-law who told her about the incident and identity of the accused Pijush Debbarma, Bamn Debbarma, Bikash Debbarma and Sailen Debbarma as the members of extremist party. PW 7, Rabindra Debbarma stated that Arun Debbarma (PW 4) whose house was also set on fire by the extremists party is a co-villager of the informant (PW 1) and a neighbour. He saw a group of extremists attacked the house of PW 4 while he was not present in his house. His wife was present at home and she told this witness about the incident. She also told this witness that he could identify some of the miscreants but at present except the name of Usha Debbarma, he has forgotten the name of other miscreants. The prosecution made a prayer for declaring PW 7 as a hostile witness and the same was allowed and thereafter, he was cross-examined. In the cross-examination, he maintained whatever deposition made in the examination-in-chief. 8. PW 8, Bipin Debbarma is not an eyewitness as he was in the market at the time of occurrence. PW 9, Jitendra Debbarma deposed that on 17.12.2000 at about 10.00 AM, some extremists wearing olive green dress like that of Assam Rifle personnel attacked the houses of Arun Debbarma (PW 4) and the informant Parendra Debbarma (PW 1) and set their houses on fire. Out of the miscreants, he could identify Usha Debbarma, Bikash Debbarma, Pijush Debbarma and Dhiru Lal Debbarma. He is also an eyewitness and his statement also corroborated by the other witnesses particularly in regard to identification of Usha Debbarma, Bikash Debbarma, Pijush Debbarma and Dhiru Lal Debbarma, PW 10, Sabita Debbarma, the wife of PW 4, Arun Debbarma, is also an eyewitness who deposed to the effect that she could identify all the accused-person named in the FIR. She identified the accused Sailen Debbarma and Barun Debbarma in the dock. This witness categorically stated that the said extremists group set fire on her house and as a result, she sustained a loss of Rs. 1,50,000. PW 11 is Subhash Nath, who is not an eyewitness but he came to know about the incident from the wife of Arun Debbarma (PW 4). 9. The last witness, PW 12 is the S.I. of Police and I.O. of this case. 1,50,000. PW 11 is Subhash Nath, who is not an eyewitness but he came to know about the incident from the wife of Arun Debbarma (PW 4). 9. The last witness, PW 12 is the S.I. of Police and I.O. of this case. On receipt of the information about the occurrence, he made a GD entry and rushed to the place of occurrence with staff. He could see that the house of the informant was completely gutted and he examined some witnesses at the place of occurrence and recorded their statement under Section 161, Code of Criminal Procedure. He also visited the house of PW 4, Arun Debbarma and examined him along with Kiran Mala Debbarma, Rabindra Debbarma, Sonacharan Debbarma and Bipin Debbarma and recorded their statement under Section 161, Code of Criminal Procedure. He deposed that he raided the houses of named accused Barun Debbarma in connection with this case on 25.12.2000. He also arrested Narendra Debbarma in connection with this case on 28.12.2000 and another named accused Sailen Debbarma on 31.12.2000 in connection with the same case. 10. After completion of investigation and on finding prima facie case against the accused persons namely, Tushar Ranjan Debbarma, Bikash Debbarma, Mangal Debbarma, Pijush Debbarma, Pradip Debbarma, Pandit Debbarma, Bijoy Debbarma, Sailen @ Sailendra Debbarma, Barun Debbarma and Narendra Debbarma on the commission of offence under Sections 148 / 149 / 436, IPC read with Section 27 of the Arms Act, submitted charge sheet against them showing accused persons, namely, Usha Rn. Debbarma, Bikash Debbarma, Mangal Debbarma, Pijush Debbarma, Pradip Debbarma, Pandit Debbarma and Bijoy Debbarma as absconder. After conclusion of the evidence of PWs, the accused persons namely, Pijush Debbarma, Mangal Debbarma and Sailen @ Sailendra Debbarma were examined under Section 313, Code of Criminal Procedure but they preferred not to adduce any evidence in their defence, the learned trial court convicted and sentenced the accused-Appellants under Section 436, IPC and offence under Section 148, IPC and acquitted the accused, namely, Narendra Debbarma. 11. On appreciation of the evidence on records, it is found that the informant (PW 1) in his FIR, Ext. P/1 mentioned the names of the accused-persons whom he could see with his own eyes and could identify while he was looking at them at the time of occurrence from a bush nearby his house. 11. On appreciation of the evidence on records, it is found that the informant (PW 1) in his FIR, Ext. P/1 mentioned the names of the accused-persons whom he could see with his own eyes and could identify while he was looking at them at the time of occurrence from a bush nearby his house. The other eyewitnesses namely, PW 1, PW 2, PW 3, PW 5, PW 9 and PW 10 have also corroborated the evidence of PW 1 and stated to have identified the accused-Appellants. The defence did not make any attempt to demolish their evidence on the identification of the accused-persons. In the cross-examination, nothing has been brought out that the said prosecution eyewitnesses did not know them or there was no chance for them to identify. It must be noted that the occurrence took place in the broad daylight at about 9.30 AM. The time of occurrence is not at all disputed. As the occurrence took place in the daytime it was quite possible for the aforesaid eyewitnesses to identify them. Surprisingly, the defence counsel in the trial court did not resort to elaborate cross-examination to find out the truth and to shatter the evidence of all the witnesses who have been adduced by the prosecution as eyewitnesses. In the criminal trial testimony of an eyewitness is given weight prominently by the court in its judicial search for truth and conviction can be based on the evidence of sole eyewitness. In this regard, I may refer to the case of Shivaji Sahebrao Bobade v. State of Maharastra, AIR 1973 SC 2622 and extract the relevant portion from para 19 of the said judgment rendered by the Supreme Court. Even if the case against the accused hangs on the evidence of a single eye-witness it may be enough to sustain the conviction given on sterling testimony of a competent honest man, although as a rule of prudence courts call for corroboration. It is a platitude to say that witnesses have to be weighed and not counted since quality matters more than quantity in human affairs.... 12. The evidence on identification of the accused persons, particularly the Appellants, having not been demolished, stands proved. It is a platitude to say that witnesses have to be weighed and not counted since quality matters more than quantity in human affairs.... 12. The evidence on identification of the accused persons, particularly the Appellants, having not been demolished, stands proved. Burden was shifted to the defence to prove that they were not present at the place of occurrence or they are not known to those PWs prior to the incident or they have been implicated falsely out of the personal grudge. In a case under Section 436, IPC, the prosecution has to prove the destruction of any building, which is ordinarily used as a place of worship or as a human dwelling or as a place for the custody of property. It is clearly established that the house set on fire and gutted was a dwelling house and it belonged to the informant (PW 1). There is no other evidence adduced by the defence that the house gutted was not a dwelling house and the informant did not suffer a loss due to the said incident. 13. In these cases, the question of test identification is not required inasmuch some of the witnesses who have seen the occurrence, had testified and identified the accused-persons at the place and at the time of occurrence. The evidence of eyewitnesses cannot be discarded lightly particularly when they have corroborated each other and the same has not been shattered in any manner in the cross-examination by the defence. 14. The evidence of PW 1, PW 2, PW 3, PW 5, PW 9 and PW 10 have been found cogent and reliable apart from being corroborated each other and on the basis of which, the conviction can be recorded. The learned trial court has rightly convicted the accused-Appellants on the basis of the said evidence and I find no ground for interference with such conviction. 15. The offence of attack and setting fire on the dwelling houses of simple living villagers can not be taken very lightly as it may put in jeopardy the lives of the inmates of the family apart from causing loss in terms of money. In this case, the poor villager informant Shri Parendra Debbarma and another villager Shri Arun Debbarma, who did not lodge FIR, may be due to threat to his life, have lost their dwelling houses and properties assessed at Rs. 10,00,000 and Rs. In this case, the poor villager informant Shri Parendra Debbarma and another villager Shri Arun Debbarma, who did not lodge FIR, may be due to threat to his life, have lost their dwelling houses and properties assessed at Rs. 10,00,000 and Rs. 1,50,000 respectively; a loss which the innocent poor villagers can ill-afford. There is, of course, another aspect, which requires consideration. The accused-Appellants are misguided tribal youths who have chosen the wrong path with arms, if they are members of an extremist group as alleged, and they should be given corrective and liberal approach in the matter of imposing sentence on them. In my considered view, the sentence of R.I. for 10 years is disproportional if the misguided youths are to be given chance for coming back to right path in societal interest. In this regard, I would refer myself to the case of Siddarama v. State of Karnataka (2006) 10 SCC 673 , wherein the Apex Court considered the proportionality of sentence in the context of liberal approach in Societal interest and Society's cry for justice. In the case of Shailesh Jasvantbhai v. State of Gujarat, (2006) 2 SCC 359 , the Supreme Court has held that the uniformly disproportionate punishment has some very undesirable practical circumstances. 16. It is stated by Mr. Debnath, learned Special P.P. that the Appellants Mangal Debbarma and Pijush Debbarma are in jail custody for 7 years 7 days till today, Sailen @ Sailendra Debbarma is in jail custody for 7 years 3 months 12 days till today and Barun Debbarma is in jail custody for 7 years - 3 months 28 days till today. In my considered view, the interest of justice will be served if the conviction and sentence is reduced to the period already undergone by the respective Appellants. 17. In view of the above, the conviction as recorded by the learned trial court is upheld reducing the sentence to the period already undergone by the Appellants. The Appellants are, therefore, set at liberty forthwith if they are not required in any other case. Appeals stand rejected but with modification in the sentence as indicated above. 18. Send down the LCR. Appeal dismissed