Vinod Prasad, J.:- 1. Three appel­lants Hukum Singh, Hari Singh and Manik Chand have preferred this appeal challenging their conviction under sec­tion 436/34 IPC and implanted sentence of 4 years RI recorded by IInd Addi­tional Session's Judge, Agra in S.T. No. 319 of 1979, State v. Hukum Singh and others, relating to P.S. Etmadpur, Dis­trict- Agra vide impugned judgment and order dated 30.6.1981. 2. Stated in brief, prosecution alle­gations were that on the intervening night between 27/28.01.1977 at 10 p.m., three appellants had set at ablaze the thatch of the victim, Smt. Keshar Dei, P.W. 1 gutting the bedroll and her ap­parel peticot and other articles kept inside it. The motive behind the incident was that the accused, who were Teli by caste had objected to fetching of water from their well by the informant Kesar Dei, who was a Jatav ( SC) by caste. 3. F.I.R. of the crime was dictated by informant Smt. Kesar Dei to Babu lal, who scribed it and thereafter she lodged it at police station Etmadpur, district Agra following day 28.1.1977 at 1.00 p.m. against the malefactors meas­uring a distance of 11 miles. 4. Head Constable Hakim Singh registered the F.I.R. by preparing Chik F.I.R., Ext. Ka-5 and GD entry, Ext. Ka-4 and S.I. Kod Singh, P.W.4 commenced the investigation. I.O. had interrogated the fact witnesses and had penned down their statements and thereafter, at the pointing out of the informant, Smt. Kesar Dei, P.W.I, conducted spot inspection and had prepared site plan map, Ext. Ka-1. He had also collected samples of burnt ashes and had prepared it's recovery memo, Ext. Ka-2. Concluding investiga­tion he had charge-sheeted the accused on 9.5.1977 vide Ext. Ka-3. 5. On the basis of the charge-sheet case was registered against the accused and they were summoned to stand trial by the Magistrate. Finding their case triable by Session's Court, it was com­mitted to the Court of Sessions. Ac­cused-appellants were charged under section 436/34 IPC, which charge they denied and claimed to be tried and therefore, to establish their guilt, their prosecution commenced. 6. In the trial informant Smt. Kesar Dei P.W.I, Baboo P.W.2, Lochan P.W.3 were examined as fact witnesses, whereas Investigating Officer S.I. Kod Singh P.W.4 was examined as formal witness. 7. Ac­cused-appellants were charged under section 436/34 IPC, which charge they denied and claimed to be tried and therefore, to establish their guilt, their prosecution commenced. 6. In the trial informant Smt. Kesar Dei P.W.I, Baboo P.W.2, Lochan P.W.3 were examined as fact witnesses, whereas Investigating Officer S.I. Kod Singh P.W.4 was examined as formal witness. 7. In their statements under sec­tion 313 Cr.P.C. accused denied incrimi­nating evidences appearing against them in the prosecution evidences and pleaded a general defence of false impli cation and denial. To establish their de­fence, on preponderance of probability, Kamal Singh D.W.I was examined by them as a defence witness. 8. Learned Trial Judge/IInd Addi­tional Session's Judge, Agra, vide im­pugned judgment and order, concluded that guilt of the appellant was estab­lished beyond all shadow of reasonable doubt and therefore convicted them for the charged offence and sentenced them to four years R.I. for that crime through impugned judgment and order, which now has been challenged in the instant appeal by the convicted appellants. 9. Pending final decision of the appeal, one of the appellant Hari Singh expired and therefore, in his respect, instant appeal stands abated and now the appeals of two surviving appellants Hukum Singh and Manik Chand are to be considered. 10. In the background of above facts, I have heard Sri Anil Malik, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Sri Sangam Lal Kesarwani, learned AGA for the State. 11. Sri Anil Malik, learned Counsel for the appellants, assailed the im­pugned judgment by submitting that the statements of witnesses are full of contradictions and embellishment and cannot be relied upon and prosecution had failed to establish it's case without ambiguity and because of caste rivalry appellants were falsely implicated in the incident. It was lastly submitted that, in the event appellants are not acquitted of the charge, they be dealt with leniency in matter of sentence, as the incident had occurred more than thirty three years ago and, at present, appellants are near about septuagenarian and they had no criminal background and during pendency of their appeal they have not committed any other crime. Appellants must have settled in life peacefully and therefore, they deserve a compassionate consideration in matter of sentence. 12. Appellants must have settled in life peacefully and therefore, they deserve a compassionate consideration in matter of sentence. 12. Learned AGA interdicted the submissions by contending that all the fact witnesses had given credible and confidence inspiring evidences without any inconsistency and incongruity and therefore, they have established the charge bereft of all reasonable doubts. In spite of searching cross-examinations, the defence has not been able to dis­lodge their testimonies and therefore, prosecution case is proved to the hilt. I.O. had collected burnt ashes from the spot and, therefore, setting ablaze of the hutment is a proved fact beyond doubt. Motive for gutting the hutment was mentioned in the FIR itself and, there­fore, on all material aspects of prosecu­tion allegations, case against the appel­lants is proved to the hilt and, therefore, appeal lacks merit and be dismissed. 13. I have considered rival submis­sions and have perused the oral and documentary evidences on record in­cluding testimonies of witnesses. Ap­preciation and analysis of witnesses evidences revealed that all the three fact witnesses informant Kesar Dei ( P.W. 1), Baboo ( P.W. 2) and Lochan ( P.W. 3) have corroborated each other and have testified the main substantum of prose­cution allegations in it's entirety without any ambiguity and inconsistency. De­fence has not been able to shake their testimonies and cull out any damaging evidences. All these witnesses have with stood the test of their cross-examinations and hence, it cannot be said that their testimonies suffers from vices of untruthfulness and embellish­ment. In such a view, once the state­ments of fact witnesses are clear and cogent that it were the appellants, who had put informant's thatch to fire reduc­ing it to ashes along with articles kept thereunder there is no reason to disbe­lieve the/n and discard their version and hence, prosecution charge against the appellants is established to the hilt. It had been stated by the informant that initially when the appellants had ap­proached her hutment, they had asked her to vacate it. Hukum Singh had poured the oil whereas Hari Singh had torched it. During the incident, Manik Chand was armed with lathi. Bedroll and other apparels along with grains kept inside the thatch were gutted in fire. It had been stated by the informant that initially when the appellants had ap­proached her hutment, they had asked her to vacate it. Hukum Singh had poured the oil whereas Hari Singh had torched it. During the incident, Manik Chand was armed with lathi. Bedroll and other apparels along with grains kept inside the thatch were gutted in fire. She further testified that she had obtained village pradhan's permission to erect her thatch on a Government land and for that purpose, she was given a written permission but that pa­per was also destroyed in the incident. Informant had further disclosed that she had lodged her FIR next day morning at 8 or 9 A.M. and she had dictated it ( FIR) at the spot without consultation or de­liberations. As stated above, informant had been supported on all material as­pects of the matter by rest of the two fact witnesses Baboo ( P.W. 2) and Lo­chan ( P.W. 3). They have further dis­closed the time of the incident at 10 P.M. and had also evidenced that soon after registration of the crime, they were in­terrogated by the I.O. Some insignificant omissions and contradictions had oc­curred in their testimonies, which do not affect the merits of the prosecution allegations. Investigating Officer SI Kod Singh P.W. 4, had lend credence to the prosecution version convincingly as he had collected the ashes of the burnt thatch and apparels from the spot and there was absence of reason for false implication. In such a view, it cannot be said that no incident, as alleged by the prosecution, had not occurred in which appellants had not participated as the culprits. There was absolutely no reason for the informant to cook up a false story regarding appellant's involve­ment. Prior to the present incident, there had been no litigation or any other en­mity with the informant. Defence has not been able to suggest any convincing and acceptable reasons for cooking up a false story against the appellants. 14. On an over all analysis, I am of the opinion that so far as conviction of the appellants are concerned, it is well merited and does not require any inter­ference by this Court. 15. Turning towards the sentence, which should be imposed upon the ap­pellants, all the appellants were in their thirties and forties at the time of the in­cident, which had occurred more than three decades ago. 15. Turning towards the sentence, which should be imposed upon the ap­pellants, all the appellants were in their thirties and forties at the time of the in­cident, which had occurred more than three decades ago. Pending considera­tion their appeals, one of the appellant Hari Singh expired and his appeal was abated on 18.12.2006. Rest of the two surviving appellants are near about sep­tuagenarian. They had no criminal history nor they had absconded or tam­pered with prosecution witnesses. There was no conviction to their credit and these two appellants must have now settled in life. In such a view, I am of the opinion that though a lenient view should be taken while sentencing these two appellants but not without ade­quately compensating the complainant victim. On the facts of the incident, a cumulative fine of Rs. 25,000/- imposed on each of the two appellants with Rs. 20,000/- as compensation out of it to the informant with period of imprison­ment already undergone by them shall meet the ends of justice. 16. The appeal is partly allowed. Conviction of appellants No. 1 and 3, Hukum Singh and Manik Chand for offence under section 436/34 IPC are hereby sustained but their sentences are altered to the period of imprisonment already undergone by them wiuV≠ of Rs. 25,000/- on each of them, out of which a compensation of Rs. 20,000/- is awarded to the informant or her legal heirs. The appellants are directed to deposit the fine with a peijiod of one month from the date of notice issued to them for the said purpose by the learned Trial Court. Failing to deposit the fine, both the ap­pellants shall be arrested and they be lodged in jail to serve out rigorous im­prisonment for a period of one year as default sentence. In the event compensa­tion is deposited, Trial Court will notice the informant or her legal heirs and shall disburse the compensation. Appel­lants' sureties shall be discharged only after they deposit the fine or are arrested to serve out the default sentence. 17. Appeal is allowed in part as above. 18. Let the copy of the judgment be certified to the Trial Court for it's inti­mation. Appeal Partly Allowed.