(1.) HEARD learned counsel for the appellant as well as learned Additional Public Prosecutor.
(2.) LEARNED counsel for the appellant fairly submitted that as during course of trial, the defence could not sail its case properly and on account thereof, even having sufficient material to demolish the evidence of the witnesses, did not succeed. Also submitted that save and except PW -4, none is an eyewitness to occurrence. So far PW -4 is concerned, although he has not properly been tested however, on the date of his examination he had disclosed his age as 12 years and that being so, on the date of alleged occurrence he was aged about 9 years a child, having every opportunity of being tutored, though not confronted. The occurrence is said to be within midst of chilly winter season and perhaps, the fire might have broke up out of furnace which were commonly used at village side whereupon, in the background of admitted animosity amongst the parties, the appellant along with others have been falsely implicated. It has further been submitted that there was no source of light and as the PW -4 was carrying bundle of straw over his shoulder, and then in that event the identification, as claimed was also not possible. But fairly submitted that as the witnesses have not been cross -examined therefore the appellant is bound to face its consequence.
(3.) IT has also been submitted that occurrence is of the year 1996 and more than 18 years have passed. Further submitted that appellant, on account of own fault is bound to face its consequence and on account thereof, is ready to compensate the prosecution in terms of Section 357 of the Cr.P.C. It has also been submitted that in the aforesaid background, the sentence already undergone be considered as a substantial sentence along with the amount which, the appellant will deposit to facilitate the informant to receive the same in lieu of compensation. Learned counsel for the appellant has fairly submitted that appellant is ready to pay Rs.50,000/ - by way of compensation.