1 HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH ; JABALPUR Cr.R.No. 115/2007 Chatar Singh Vs. State of M.P. For the Applicant : Shri Abhay Gupta, Advocate. For the Respondent : Smt Nirmala Nayak, GA Heard on the question of admission. State counsel has taken notice of this admission, hence no further notice is required. With the consent of the parties, this revision is heard finally. Order dictated in open court. ORDER (26.08.2011) This revision is directed by the applicant/accused, being aggrieved by the order dated 2.1.07 passed by the Sessions Judge, Hoshangabad in Cr.A.No.126/05 affirming the judgment dated 12.9.05 passed by the JMFC Seoni-Malwa in criminal Case No.816/2000 convicting and sentencing the applicant for the offence under section 456 and 323 of the IPC with a direction to undergo for RI six months with fine of Rs.1000/-, in default of payment of fine further RI 15 days in the earlier section while till rising the court with fine of Rs.1000/-, in default of payment of fine, further RI 15 days in the later section. 2. The facts necessary to adjudicate this revision are that on 19.10.2000 complainant Rukmani Bai Harijan, resident of village Bhiladiya, lodged a report with police station Seoni-Malwa contending that in the last night, the applicant entered in her house and on hearing the noise, she tried to catch him but he fled away from such place. After holding the investigation, the applicant was charge-sheeted for the offence of section 456 IPC. On appreciation of the evidence, the charge for the offence under section 456 2 and 323 of the IPC were framed against him. He abjured the same, on which the trial was held. On appreciation of the evidence, the applicant was convicted and sentenced by the trial court as stated above. On filing the appeal, by affirming the judgment of the trial court, the same was also dismissed, on which, the applicant has come forward with this revision. 3. Applicant's counsel instead to argue the case on merits, made his submissions only for reducing the jail sentence awarded by the courts below from the period of six months under section 456 IPC to the period for which he has already undergone between 2.1.07 to 17.1.07, by enhancing the amount of fine under discretion of the Court. In continuation, he also said that lenient view should also be adopted keeping in view the age of the applicant on the date of incident as he was only 20 years of the age. 4. The aforesaid prayer is opposed by the state counsel saying that looking to the nature of the offence and the manner in which it was committed by the applicant, the impugned conviction and sentence of the applicant does not require any interference at this stage even for reduction of the jail sentence awarded against him and prayed for dismissal of this revision. 5. Having heard the counsel, after perusing the record, I have found that the evidence available on the record has been properly appreciated by both the courts below in holding the alleged conviction and affirming the same by the appellate court. So, on such question, this revision does not require any consideration for interference in the impugned judgment. It is noted that the finding part of the judgment has not been challenged by the applicant counsel during his arguments. 6. Coming to consider the prayer of the applicant for reducing his jail sentence, in view of the age of the applicant 20 years on the date of the incident, I have found some substance in the matter for reducing the jail sentence. In the available circumstances, looking to the nature of the offence, the applicant could not be extended the benefit of Probation of Offenders Act but it does not mean that his jail sentence could not be 3 reduced. The alleged incident was happened in the year 2000 and since then the applicant is facing the mental agony of the case from the trial court upto this court and he also suffered the jail sentence awarded from 2.1.07 from the date of the appellate court judgment till his release in compliance of the order dated 17.1.07 whereby his remaining jail sentence was suspended. So, in such premises, I deem fit to reduce his jail sentence awarded under section 456 for RI six months, from such period to the period he has already undergone. Simultaneously, the fine amount imposed under section 456 IPC is hereby enhanced from Rs.1000/- to Rs.2500/-. 7. Therefore, by allowing this revision in part, the jail sentence awarded under section 456 of the IPC RI six months, is hereby reduced from such period to the period for which the applicant has already undergone as stated above by enhancing the amount of fine from Rs.1000/- to Rs.2500/-. Failing in depositing the enhanced fine amount within the 45 days from today, the applicant has to suffer further two months S.I. 8. The trial court is directed to take care to serve the aforesaid sentence on non depositing the enhanced amount of fine within the prescribed period. Till this extent the impugned judgment is hereby modified while the other findings, the conviction and sentence awarded to the applicant under section 323 IPC are hereby affirmed. 9. The revision is allowed in part as indicated above. (U.C.Maheshwari) Judge MKL 4