Pritinker Diwaker, J.

This appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 22.8.2008 passed by Additional Sessions Judge Gariyaband, District Raipur in Sessions Trial No. 12/2008 convicting the accused/appellants under Section 436/34 IPC and sentencing each of them to undergo rigorous imprisonment for ten years with fine of Rs. 10,000/-, plus default stipulations.

2. Facts of the case in brief are that on 14.3.2008 the accused/appellants set on fire the house and shop of complainant Lakhan Sahu (PW-1) as a result of which two rooms and the grocery items worth Rs. 1,50,000/- got burnt. Written report Ex. P-1 was lodged by the complainant and after inquiry FIR Ex. P-6 was registered against unknown persons. Further case of the prosecution is that about 25 days after the incident Devi Singh (PW-2) made the statement on 9.4.2008 before the police to the effect that he had seen the accused/appellants setting on fire the house/shop of the complainant and based on that further investigation was done and charge-sheet for the offence punishable under Section 436 was filed against them followed by framing of charge under Section 436/34 IPC.

3. So as to hold the accused/appellants guilty, prosecution has examined 09 witnesses in support of its case. Statements of the accused/appellants were also recorded under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure in which they denied the charge levelled against them and pleaded their innocence and false implication in the case.

4. After hearing the parties, the trial Court has convicted and sentenced the accused/appellants as mentioned above in paragraph No.1 of this judgment.

5. Counsel for the accused/appellants submits that the accused/appellants have been falsely implicated in this case just on the basis of statement of Devi Singh (PW-2) who does not appear to be a trustworthy witness as he kept quiet for a period of 15 days from the date of incident, and being so the findings recorded by the Court below suffer from a legal flaw and are liable to be set aside.

6. On the other hand, counsel for the respondent/State supports the judgment impugned and submits that the findings recorded by the Court below convicting the accused/appellants under Section 436/34 IPC are strictly in accordance with law and there is no infirmity in the same.

7. Heard counsel for the parties and perused the evidence on record.

8. Complainant-Lakhan Lal Sahu (PW-1) has stated in his evidence that on the date of incident at about 2 AM when he was sleeping, his nephew came to him and after waking him up informed about the fire in his house. Thereafter, he rushed to spot and saw that his shop had caught fire and all the grocery items kept therein were burnt. This witness has further stated that on hearing his cries, people of the vicinity reached there and when they were trying to extinguish the fire, smell of petrol was emanating, and then he went to the police station and made the written report. According to this witness, 16-17 days thereafter Devi Ram (PW-2) came to his house and told him that he had seen the accused/appellants setting his house/shop on fire. In cross-examination also, this witness remained firm to what he has stated in the examination-in-chief. Devi Singh (PW-2) has stated in his evidence that on the date of incident at about 2 AM when he was returning after attending a religious concert, he had seen accused Lalit on the rooftop of the complainant whereas accused Lalla alias Uday Pratap and Ranjit were standing near his house. According to this witness, accused Lalit was pouring some substance kept in a container and thereafter accused Lalla lit the match stick and then all the three accused ran away. This witness has further stated that 15-16 days thereafter he informed about the incident to the complainant and one Durga Charan and then to the police. In cross-examination, he however, has admitted that the relations between him and accused Lalit were not cordial. According to him, his rela