Hon’ble Pramod Kumar Srivastava, J.—This appeal has been preferred against the judgment passed by Additional Sessions Judge/F.T.C. No. 3, Basti in Special Session Trial No. 61 of 1996 (State v. Durga Singh) under Section 436 IPC and Section 3(2)(iv) The Scheduled Castes or Schedule Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 [hereinafter referred to as “SC/ST Act”] in case crime No. 25/1995, p.s.-Dubaulia, Basti, by which, sole accused Durga Singh was convicted on 5.12.2008 for the charges under Section 436 IPC and Section 3(2)(iv) of the SC/ST Act; and punished on 6.12.2008 for the charge under Section 336 IPC with rigorous imprisonment of 10 years and fine of Rs. 500/- (in default of payment one month’s additional imprisonment) and for the charge under Section 3(2)(iv) of the SC/ST Act with imprisonment for life and fine of Rs. 500/- (in default of payment one month’s additional imprisonment), with direction that both the sentences would run concurrently.

2. The prosecution case in brief was that informant Raghuwar and accused Durga Singh are the resident of same village. Informant belongs to the S/C (scheduled caste) community and accused is non-SC/ST person. On 17.3.1995 at about 8:00 p.m. in night informant Raghuwar (PW1) while cooking inside his house saw the flames in backside of his house. Then he rushed out of his house and saw that Neebar Singh and his son Durga Singh of his village put on fire his house from the backside and were running away. On his alarm his brother Shivraj (PW-2) and son Dinai (PW-3) had seen the Neebar Singh and Durga Singh fleeing away from his house after putting his house on fire. The informant had given a written report (Ex-A-1) of this incident in police station after about three days on 20.3.1995 at 7:00 p.m., on the basis of which case crime No. 25/1995 was registered. After completion of the investigation, charge-sheet for the offences under Section 436 IPC and Section 3(2)(iv) of the SC/ST Act were filed against two accused persons, namely, Neebar Singh and and his son Durga Singh (present appellant), on the basis of which Special S.T. No. 61/1996 was registered, in which both the accused were charged for the aforesaid offences. They denied the charges, pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. But during trial, accused Neebar Singh had died and his trial was abated; so trial proceeded against Durga Singh only.

3. During trial, prosecution side had examined PW-1 Raghuwar, (informant), PW-2 Shivraj, PW-3 Dinai, PW-4 H.C. Harikrishna Singh and PW-5 S.I. Ali Raza (IO). These witnesses had proved documents of prosecution side.

4. After conclusion of the prosecution evidence, statement of accused Durga Singh under Section 313 Cr.P.C. was recorded in which he had denied the prosecution evidence and said that those evidences are false, erroneous investigation had been done and he is innocent. Defence side had not adduced any defence evidence.

5. After affording opportunity of hearing to the prosecution and defence side, the trial Court had passed the judgment dated 5.12.2008, by which accused Durga Singh was convicted as above. Then after affording opportunity of hearing on the point of the quantum of the sentence, the trial Court had sentenced the appellant on 6.12.2008 as above. Aggrieved by which, present appeal has been preferred by the accused.

6. Smt. Kavita Tomar, learned Amicus Curiae appeared on behalf of the appellant, and learned AGA appeared for the State respondent. We have heard their arguments and perused the original records.

7. Learned counsel for the appellant contended that there is no eye-witness of the incident and accused persons were only seen going away from the spot. There is no evidence that they had committed any mischief by fire. She contended that the appellant was falsely implicated in this matter due to enmity as accepted by PW-1 during his examination-in-chief. She further contended that the FIR is much delayed without any explanation, so appeal should