JUDGMENT Boys, J. - This is an application in revision of a conviction and sentence of six months' rigorous imprisonment u/s 456 of the Indian Penal Code. It is quite unnecessary to repeat the facts in detail. The accused were found in the middle of the night in the house of another person. They set up the defence that they were bolting to escape from a gambling raid in a neighbouring house. That has been disbelieved. As to the question of how far an intent to commit an offence or to intimidate, insult or annoy can be inferred from the other facts, where there is no direct evidence, and from the silence or the false statement of the accused, I need say nothing further than that I am entirely in agreement with the view expressed by Sir George Knox in King-Emperor v. Mulla (1915) 37 All. 395=13 A.L.J. 625-39 I.C. 67=16 Cr.L.J. 435, that "Cases of this kind really rest upon the facts which are found. If those facts are such that a person of ordinary prudence and ability would come to the conclusion that they point to a guilty intent on the part of the accused it is for the accused to rebut that guilty intention and if he does not so rebut it the guilty intent is as much found against him as his entry into or upon the property." 2. The next point taken is that the actual owner or possessor of the house in this connection was not produced, and reliance was placed on the case of Kunji Lal v. Ring-Emperor (1913) 12 A.L.J. 151=21 I.C. 681=14 Cr.L.J. 633. That case is clearly distinguishable in that the person who was in possession had no objection whatever to the alleged trespass. 3. Lastly, I am asked to consider the question of sentence. 16 does not seam to have transpired very satisfactorily what the real ultimate object of the accused was. It is for this reason that they have been convicted only u/s 441. If the offence which was their ultimate objective was not a serious offence, a sentence of 6 months appears to be excessive, On the other hand, if their intention was to commit a serious offence, it seems to me likely that the prosecution might have been able to prove that intention if something had not been concealed by the prosecution witnesses. 4. 4. Under circumstances, I think that a sentence of three month's imprisonment will meet the case. To this extent I allow the application for revision. For the rest it is dismissed. Of the five accused in the case only two actually applied in revision, but I have been through the record and there is nothing to distinguish the case of one from another. My order, therefore, will apply to the case of all the five.