JUDGMENT : 1. Heard learned counsel for the appellant, Mr. Nilendu Kumar, Advocate and learned counsel for the State, Mr. Asif Khan, learned Additional Public Prosecutor. 2. The instant Criminal Appeal has been preferred against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence, both dated 18.12.2003 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, (Fast Track Court IInd), Bokaro in Sessions Trial No. 287 of 1993/Supplementary Sessions Trial No. 91 of 2003, whereby both the appellants Chunnilal @ Shashi Ram and Anil Kumar @ Raju Paswan have been convicted by the learned Trial Court for offence punishable under Section 429 and 435 of the Indian Penal Code and awarded rigorous imprisonment for two years for offence punishable under Section 429 and rigorous imprisonment for three years for offence punishable under Section 435 of the Indian Penal Code. Both the sentences are directed to run concurrently. Both the appellants have preferred Criminal Appeal no. 115 of 2004 on 20.01.2004, which was admitted on 06.02.2004 and their provisional bail have been confirmed. Since then the appeal is pending before this Hon’ble Court. 3. The prosecution case is that, on 24.03.1992 between 11.00 and 12.00 O’clock at midnight, at Sector IX and Sector VIII more khatals, the appellants put the khatal of the informant Ram Dayal Yadav under fire and accused persons fled away. In the said occurrence two she-buffalo and one calf died and the thatched structure worth Rs. 20,000/- was also ablazed. The informant has alleged, that these two persons have given threatening with dire consequences and they have put the structures at fire, in which the cattles have died. On the basis of the fardbeyan, the F.I.R. was lodged, being Harla P.S. Case No. 31/1992 dated 25.03.1992, under Section 436/429/34 of the Indian Penal Code, have been instituted and after investigation police submitted Charge Sheet vide no. 78 of 1992 dated 29.04.1992. The cognizance of the offence was taken and the matter was committed to the Court of Sessions, where the charges have been framed under Sections 436/429 of the Indian Penal Code, to which the appellants have pleaded not guilty and thus, have been put under trial. 4. The prosecution has examined altogether eight witnesses and also exhibited a number of documentary evidence in support of their case. 4. The prosecution has examined altogether eight witnesses and also exhibited a number of documentary evidence in support of their case. Bhoja Rai has been examined as P.W. 1, he is an eye-witness to the occurrence, Raghu Nandan Prasad Yadav has been examined as P.W. 2, he is also an eye-witness to the occurrence, Harinath Rai has been examined as P.W. 3. He is a seizure witness. Dwarika Prasad has been examined as P.W.4., he is also an eye-witness to the occurrence, Ram Dayal Yadav, informant of the case and the owner of the khatal, has been examined as P.W. 5, Santosh Kumar Sharma is a formal witness and has been examined as P.W. 6, Mahesh Rai has been examined as P.W. 7 and Gopal Krishna Gupta, Assistant Director, Vrihat Pashu Vikas Pariyojna has been examined as P.W. 8, who has examined the calf and also conducted post mortem over the she-buffaloes and calf. 5. Exhibit 1 is the signature of P.W. 3 on seizure list, Exhibit 2 is the signature of the informant on the fardbeyan, Exhibit 2/1 is fardbeyan, Exhibit 3 and 3/1 is injury reports of she-buffaloes and the calf and Exhibit 4 and 5 are the post-mortem reports of the cattles. 6. After closure of the prosecution evidence, the statement of the appellant under Section 313 Cr.P.C. has been recorded. 7. Defence has also examined one witness as D.W. 1, Kitto Manjhi. 8. After hearing the parties, the learned Trial Court has convicted the appellants. 9. Heard learned counsel for the appellant, Mr. Nilendu Kumar and counsel for the State, Mr. Asif Khan, Additional Public Prosecutor on behalf of the State. 10. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted, that Investigating Officer of this case has not been examined and that has caused prejudice to the appellants. Learned counsel for the appellants has further submitted, that except P.W. 1, P.W. 2 and P.W. 4, no one has seen the occurrence. Even the informant is not an eye-witness to the occurrence. 11. Learned counsel for the State, Mr. Asif Khan, learned Additional Public Prosecutor has submitted, that it is a case, where Bhoja Rai (P.W. 1) and Dwarika Prasad (P.W.4) are eye-witness to the occurrence and they have identified both the appellants, while they were putting the khatal under fire, causing death of three cattles and complete damage of the khatal. 11. Learned counsel for the State, Mr. Asif Khan, learned Additional Public Prosecutor has submitted, that it is a case, where Bhoja Rai (P.W. 1) and Dwarika Prasad (P.W.4) are eye-witness to the occurrence and they have identified both the appellants, while they were putting the khatal under fire, causing death of three cattles and complete damage of the khatal. Their testimonies are such that in cross-examination, the defence could not elucidate anything to disbelieve the prosecution case. 12. The learned counsel for the State has further submitted that the occurrence took place in the year 1992 and the trial has concluded in the year 2003, causing such loss to the nation as well as owner of the khatal, Ram Dayal Yadav. 13. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that, since the appellants have suffered the rigors of trial for approximately eleven years and appeal is pending before this court for more than 13 years and as such, appellants have suffered rigors of the case for 24 years as such, lenient view may be taken against the appellants. 14. Heard learned counsel for the appellants and learned counsel for the State and perused the record including the F.I.R., depositions, Exhibits and the defence witnesses. From perusal of the record, it appears that the evidence of P.W. 1 and P.W. 4 are very consistent with the Exhibits 3, 3/1, 4 and 5 and nothing has been shown before this court, that non-examination of the Investigating Officer has caused serious prejudice to the appellants. 15. Considering the evidence of prosecution witnesses particularly Bhoj Rai (P.W. 1), Dwarika Prasad (P.W. 4), Ram Dayal Yadav (P.W. 5) and Gopal Krishna Gupta, Assistant Director, Vrihat Pashu Vikas Pariyojna (P.W. 8), this court is of the opinion, that the prosecution has able to prove its case beyond all reasonable doubts against these two appellants and as such, this court affirms the judgment of conviction passed by the learned Trial Court, whereby the appellants have been convicted under Section 429 and 435 of the Indian Penal Code. So far the sentence is concerned, this court is taking a reformatory view, so that these persons may not go in contact with hardened criminals, who are languishing in Jail after breaking and cutting the 72 lockers of the State Bank of India, Bokaro Steel City by use of wielding machine. So far the sentence is concerned, this court is taking a reformatory view, so that these persons may not go in contact with hardened criminals, who are languishing in Jail after breaking and cutting the 72 lockers of the State Bank of India, Bokaro Steel City by use of wielding machine. If these persons are sent to jail there is every likelihood that these convicts may go in direct contact of such hardened criminals and as such, this court is of the opinion that instead of granting them sentence, it would be appropriate, if these two appellants who are working as weilders under private contractor are directed to serve the gaushala owned by government or Society, as these two appellants during their young age have committed such mischief and now they are working under private contractors for the livelihood of their family as weilders and they have faced the consequences of trial for more than 11 years and appeal was pending for more than 13 years i.e. altogether 24 years. Considering these aspects of the matter, the appellants are directed to serve the nearest gaushala to their residence, run by the government or by any Society, once in a week i.e. on the holidays for continuous period of six month, on every holiday and pay compensation of Rs. 25,000/- each, to the informant Ram Dayal Yadav (P.W.5) within a period of 10 weeks from today. 16. The learned Trial Court is directed to notice Ram Dayal Yadav (informant of the case) and in case he is not available, the notice will be issued to his legal heirs and the amount shall be paid to the informant or legal heirs. The payment must be done within 10 weeks from today, failing which the appellants shall serve a sentence of rigorous imprisonment for one year in jail custody. The gaushala management or the gaushala in-charge shall issue a certificate with respect to their satisfactory work and if it is found that the appellants have not served the cattles properly, the gaushala authority will not issue such certificate, failing which after six months, the appellants shall serve a sentence of rigorous imprisonment for one year in custody. The certificate shall be produced before the learned Trial Court, which will be kept on record. 17. The certificate shall be produced before the learned Trial Court, which will be kept on record. 17. In the result, the judgment of conviction and order of sentence, both dated 18.12.2003 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, (Fast Track Court IInd), Bokaro in Sessions Trial No. 287 of 1993/Suppl. Sessions Trial No. 91 of 2003, in connection with Harla P.S. Case No. 31/1992 corresponding to G.R. No. 369/1992, is modified as stated hereinabove. 18. The present Criminal Appeal stands dismissed with aforesaid modifications. 19. Let the lower court record along with a copy of this judgment be sent to the Court concerned for necessary action.