JUDGMENT 1. - Petitioner-Mehtab Singh has been convicted for the offence under Secs. 451, 336 and 404 Indian Penal Code and has been sentenced for these offences to various terms and of rigorous imprisonment to run concurrently and for the offence under Section 451 Indian Penal Code, he has also been imposed a fine of Rs. 500/-. 2. The facts borne out are that the petitioner who was Rakshak in Railway Protection Force, was under suspension on account of two criminal cases pending against him regarding theft of railway steam coal, K.M. Shah, PW 1, was the Asstt. Security Officer and was residing the Railway Bungalow No. 421 located at Beawar Road, Ajmer. On 3rd March, 1978, K.M. Shah was sitting with his family members in a room of his residential bungalow'. At about 8.45 p.m., the petitioner entered the compound of the bungalow and knocked the do others of the room where K.M.Shah was sitting and he started abusing K.M.Shah and asked him that he should be taken back on immediately otherwise he would kill Mr. K.M.Shah and set-fire to the bungalow. It was further alleged that the petitioner started throwing stones in the bungalow. Shri Shah called for the help by telephone to the staff and C and W workshop. The staff members came and the petitioner was taken to Police Station. Shri K.M.Shah lodged an FIR Ex. P.l whereupon a case was registered against the petitioner and after investigation a charge-sheet was filed and after trial the petitioner was convicted and sentenced as aforesaid by the Judicial Magistrate No. 1, Ajmer. The petitioner filed an appeal but the same was dismissed by the Addl. Sessions Judge No. 2, Ajmer by Judgment dated 22nd August, 1989 against which the present revision petition has been filed. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner urged that the case of the prosecution that the petitioner threw stones in the bungalow of Shri K.M.Shah, is not established. He pointed out that in the site-plan prepared by the Investigating Officer Ex. P.3, it is nowhere mentioned that there were any stones lying outside the bungalow or inside the bungalow. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner urged that the case of the prosecution that the petitioner threw stones in the bungalow of Shri K.M.Shah, is not established. He pointed out that in the site-plan prepared by the Investigating Officer Ex. P.3, it is nowhere mentioned that there were any stones lying outside the bungalow or inside the bungalow. He has also submitted that had the petitioner thrown any stones, some injury must have resulted to the body of Shri K.M.Shah and his family members and some damage must have been caused to the doors and windows of the bungalow but there was nothing of that sort. The learned counsel also urged that the petitioner was under suspension and was in financial crisis. In that back ground he went to the bungalow of Shri K.M.Shah and only requested him to take him on duty. According to the learned counsel, no offence was made out against the petitioner. In the alternative, he urged that in the circumstances of the case, the petitioner should have been given benefit of probation. 4. So far as the theory of throwing stones is concerned, there is specific note in the site-plan Ex.P.3 by the Investigating Officer that there were no stones. This fact has material bearing on the theory of the prosecution regarding throwing of the stones by petitioner. Admittedly, no injury was sustained by Shri K.M.Shah or any members of his family and no damage was caused to any door or window of the bungalow. In such circumstances, the findings of the courts below regarding throwing of stones Is quite unjustified. 5. However, there is no reason to doubt the evidence produced by the prosecution that the petitioner, being involved in some criminal cases of theft of railway steam coal, was under suspension. He entered into the bungalow of Shri K.M.Shah and asked him to take him on duty and otherwise he threatened him to kill and to set-fire to the bungalow. Right of privacy and dignity of individual are sacred rights. No one can enter in the house or bungalow occupied by another with an Section 451 Indian Penal Code. As regards the offence under Section 504 Indian Penal Code, suffice it to state that since the petitioner threatened to Mr. Right of privacy and dignity of individual are sacred rights. No one can enter in the house or bungalow occupied by another with an Section 451 Indian Penal Code. As regards the offence under Section 504 Indian Penal Code, suffice it to state that since the petitioner threatened to Mr. K.M.Shah that in case he was not taken back on duty, he will kill him and set-fire to his house, it was likely to afford provocation to Mr. K.M.Shah to commit an offence. The petitioner was, therefore, rightly held guilty under Section 504 Indian Penal Code. Since the prosecution version of throwing stones has not been held to the established, the offence under Section 336 Indian Penal Code is not made out. I, therefore, set aside the conviction of the petitioner for the offence under Section 336 Indian Penal Code and hold him guilty only for offence under Section 451 and 504 Indian Penal Code. 6. As to the sentence, it may be stated that the offence took place on 3rd March, 1978 i.e. more than 14 years back. The petitioner was an employee of Railway Protection Force and was under suspension. Financial difficulties led him to be irritated and to go to the extent of entering into the bungalow occupied by Mr. K.M.Shah, with an intention to intimidate the latter and to commit offence, under Section 504 Indian Penal Code. Having regard all these facts, I am of the view that a fine of Rs. 500/- for the offence under Section 451 Indian Penal Code and further a fine of Rs. 200/- for the offence under Section 504 Indian Penal Code would meet the ends of justice and would give to the petitioner a lesson for not committing such offences in future. 7. I, therefore, partly allow this revision, set aside the conviction of the petitioner for offences under Section 336 Indian Penal Code and acquit him from the said offence. While maintaining the conviction of the petitioner for the offences under Section 451 and 504 Indian Penal Code, I modify sentences awarded to him for these two offences and only sentence him with fine of Rs. 500/- for the offence under Section 451 Indian Penal Code and with a fine of Rs. 200/- for offence under Section 504 Indian Penal Code. 500/- for the offence under Section 451 Indian Penal Code and with a fine of Rs. 200/- for offence under Section 504 Indian Penal Code. In default of payment of fine within a period of 3 months from the date of this order, the petitioner will undergo simple imprisonment for one month for the offence under Section 451 Indian Penal Code and in relation to the offence under Section 504 Indian Penal Code also for a period of one months's simple imprisonment. The revision petition is accordingly partly allowed.Revision partly allowed. *******