ORDER : Heard Mr. B.K. Dubey, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr. R.K. Singh, learned A.P.P. for the State. 2. This application is directed against the Judgment dated 02.05.2000 passed by the learned 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Hazaribagh in Criminal Appeal No. 82 of 1994 whereby and whereunder the Judgment and order of conviction and sentence passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Hazaribagh in G.R. Case No. 1967 of 1990 (T.R. No. 455 of 1994) on 22.04.1994 convicting the petitioner for the offence punishable u/s 435 of the Indian Penal Code and sentencing him to undergo R.I. for a period of two years has been affirmed. 3. It has been submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that save and except the evidence of P.W.3 there is no other eye witnesses to the occurrence. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the evidence of P.W.3 cannot be believed simply because of the fact that there are some major discrepancies in his evidence. It has also been submitted that the Investigating Officer of the case did not seize the burnt Matador Van and in such circumstances the benefit of doubt should have been given to the petitioner. 4. In the alternative an argument advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner that if this court is not inclined to interfere in the Judgment and conviction the sentence awarded to the petitioner be modified considering the facts that the petitioner has faced the rigors of the prosecution case for the last almost three decades. 5. Learned A.P.P. for the State has supported the impugned order. 6. It appears from allegations made in the First Information Report that the informant on 04.11.1990 had heard the opening of the gate of his Matador bearing registration No. B.H.M.-8808 which was parked in front of his shop. It is alleged that on hearing the aforesaid sound he came out from his shop and found the petitioner was pouring some liquid on the driving seat and after seeing the informant the petitioner has lighted a match stick and set fire to the Matador. An alarm being raised the neighboring shop keepers had come running and the petitioner was chased but was not caught. Based on the aforesaid allegation G.R. Case No. 1967 of 1990 was instituted. An alarm being raised the neighboring shop keepers had come running and the petitioner was chased but was not caught. Based on the aforesaid allegation G.R. Case No. 1967 of 1990 was instituted. After investigation charge-sheet was submitted against the petitioner and cognizance was taken for the offence punishable u/s 435 of the I.P.C. 7. After conclusion of trial the learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Hazaribagh had been pleased to convict the petitioner for the offence punishable u/s 435 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced him to undergo R.I. for two years vide Judgment dated 22.04.1994. The petitioner had preferred an appeal being Cr. Appeal No. 82 of 1994 which however was dismissed by the learned 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Hazaribagh on 02.05.2000. The prosecution in course of trial had examined as many as five witnesses. P.W.3 is the informant Kuldip Pd. Mehta is the sole eye witness who had seen the petitioner igniting his Matador Van and on raising alarm the petitioner had managed to make good his escape. The other witnesses namely P.W.1 Chhakauri Pd. Mehta, P.W.2 Kunj Lal Mehta and P.W.4 Pradeep Kumar are although hearsay witnesses but they have supported the occurrence to the extent that on raising alarm they had also rushed to the place of occurrence and seeing them the petitioner fled away. The evidence of P.W.3 therefore to a certain extent is corroborated by P.W.1, 2 and 4. In view of the consistent evidence led by the prosecution the learned trial court had rightly convicted the petitioner for the offence punishable u/s 435 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced him accordingly. The learned appellate court has also properly appreciated the materials available on record before dismissing the appeal. There being no reason to interfere in the Judgment and order of conviction passed by the learned trial court and affirmed by the learned appellate court, this application fails and the same is accordingly dismissed. 8. However, as regard to the sentence which has been awarded to the petitioner is concerned it appears that the case had been instituted in the year 1990 and the petitioner is facing the rigors of the prosecution for the last more than 27 years. The petitioner has for some period remained in custody. 8. However, as regard to the sentence which has been awarded to the petitioner is concerned it appears that the case had been instituted in the year 1990 and the petitioner is facing the rigors of the prosecution for the last more than 27 years. The petitioner has for some period remained in custody. Considering the long pendency of the case and the allegations which has been made against the petitioner in the interest of justice the sentence awarded to the petitioner is modified to the period undergone. 9. This application stands dismissed with the aforesaid modification in sentence.