Judgment : 1. Heard learned counsel for appellant and learned Additional Public Prosecutor for respondent-State. Appellant has challenged legality and validity of judgment and order dated 6th March 2008 passed by the Ad-hoc District Judge-3 and Additional Sessions Judge, Nagpur whereby appellant/accused has been convicted for an offence punishable under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for ten years and to pay a fine of Rs. 1000/-, in default, to suffer further rigorous imprisonment for ten years. 2. Learned counsel for appellant took me through evidence on record and submitted that the appellant ought to have been acquitted by the trial Court as there was no sufficient evidence beyond reasonable doubt to convict the appellant. 3. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor, on the other hand, opposed the submission contending that the victim Surekha was married with appellant on 9.5.1999 and they had two daughters out of the wedlock. Appellant was addicted to liquor and victim Surekha was left to earn livelihood for herself and family by doing labour work. There were frequent quarrels between appellant and Surekha. Surekha was subjected to beating and abuses by appellant-accused regularly. According to learned APP, the prosecution adduced ample evidence on record to prove that the appellant had attempted to murder Surekha by pouring kerosene on her person and setting her on fire. He submitted that crime was brought to light on the basis of dying declaration recorded by the Special Judicial Magistrate and twelve witnesses. He submits that evidence of victim, child Mayur and neighbourer Keshav is clinching and reliable. It was the neighbourer Keshav who poured water on the person of victim Surekha and extinguished fire. 4. I have gone through impugned judgment and order and read the evidence on record. Looking to the evidence on record, learned trial Court arrived at just, proper and logical conclusion that the prosecution succeeded to prove that appellant set prosecutrix Surekha on fire with such an intention or knowledge or under circumstances that if he had by that act caused death of Surekha he would have been guilty of murder. In my opinion, there is no reason to disturb the finding of guilt recorded by the trial Court. 5. Learned counsel for the appellant, in the alternative, prayed for lenient view and for reduction of sentence. 6. In my opinion, there is no reason to disturb the finding of guilt recorded by the trial Court. 5. Learned counsel for the appellant, in the alternative, prayed for lenient view and for reduction of sentence. 6. After the evidence was recorded, it is borne out from record that victim Surekha submitted an application (exhibit 39) before the trial Court stating that she is unable to shoulder responsibility of two minor daughters and that her mother is asking to leave the house. Under the circumstances, it is stated that victim Surekha needed company of husband who would take up responsibility of victim and two daughters. Reliance is placed on Rajendra Prasad and anr v. State of Bihar ( AIR 1987 SC 1335 ) where sentence of imprisonment for three years for offence under Section 307 IPC was brought down to one and half-years’ R.I. The Apex Court in the said case found that the incident was ten years old and that it had occurred in a heat of moment and, therefore, reduced the sentence. 7. In the present case, it is not in dispute that the incident had occurred when appellant was under the influence of liquor. It is further not in dispute that the spouse has two minor daughters. Victim Surekha has disclosed her tragedy in application (exhibit 39) and calamity fallen on her since her mother is asking her to leave house. She has expressed hope that if appellant returns, he may take upon him job of maintenance of victim and two minor daughters. It is in these circumstances, in my opinion, interest of justice would be met if substantive sentence of imprisonment is brought down to five years from ten years, as imposed by the trial Court. 8. In the result, conviction of the appellant under Section 307 IPC is maintained. However, quantum of sentence of rigorous imprisonment for ten years as imposed by the trial Court is reduced to RI for five years. With this modification in the quantum of sentence, appeal stands disposed of. Needless to say, appellant shall be entitled to benefit of set-off under Section 428 of the Criminal Procedure Code.