Judgment MOHD. YAMIN, J. ( 1 ) LEARNED Additional Sessions Judge No. 2, Hanumangarh vide judgment dated 24-5-1983 convicted Palaram and Maniram appellants for offence under Section 451, IPC and sentenced each one of them for two years rigorous imprisonment with a fine of Rs. 1,000/each and in default to undergo six months rigorous imprisonment. It is against this judgment of conviction and sentence that this appeal was preferred. ( 2 ) BRIEFLY stated, FIR No. 178 was registered on 22-8-1981, in which it was stated that during the night in between 12th and 13th August, 1981 Pemaram had gone to the field of Lalchand Rawataram leaving Amru Ram, his wife and his sons Wife in the house. Smt. Kesar, who is the wife of Lalchand made hue and cry and then Amru Ram and his wife woke up. They saw Maniram and Palaram standing in the courtyard. They then scaled the wall and ran, away. When these persons made alarm, neighbours Taruram and Nandram immediately came and saw appellants running and identified them. It is further alleged in the First Information Report which was received by post at the Police station that Kesar was raped by Maniram while Pala had put a hand on her mouth. It was further alleged in the First Information Report that when the matter was reported to the Police, the Police did not register the case. Thereupon, Sarpanch Lotram and former M. L. A. were approached who assured that action would be taken. But thereafter the appellants threatened Lalchand the dire, consequences with the result Lalchand committed suicide by hanging himself. Again the police was approached but even then the case was not registered. Hence, the report was sent by Registered Post. The police registered a case under Sections 376, 457, 306 IPC and submitted challan before the Magistrate having jurisdiction who committed the case to the learned Sessions Judge where charges under Sections 458, 376, 354, and 342, IPC were framed and read over to the accused persons. It is also found that the charges with the aid of Section 34 of IPC were framed and read over to the accused appellants. They denied them and claimed trial. Thereupon the prosecution examined seven witnesses in all. Thereafter, the accused appellants were examined, under Section 313, Cr. P. C. They examined two witnesses in defence. It is also found that the charges with the aid of Section 34 of IPC were framed and read over to the accused appellants. They denied them and claimed trial. Thereupon the prosecution examined seven witnesses in all. Thereafter, the accused appellants were examined, under Section 313, Cr. P. C. They examined two witnesses in defence. Learned Sessions Judge convicted the appellants only under Section 451, IPC as stated above. The other offences were not found proved and hence the appellants were acquitted from the charges of Sections 458, 376, 354, and 342, IPC. ( 3 ) I have heard the learned Counsel for the appellants as well as learned Public Prosecutor at length and have gone through the record. ( 4 ) LEARNED Counsel for the appellants, submitted that even charge under Section 451, IPC is not made out. He carried me through the evidence and submitted that the witnesses are not reliable. Hence entry of the appellants in the house cannot be said to have been proved. ( 5 ) ON the other hand, learned Public Prosecutor supported the judgment. ( 6 ) PW-1 Smt. Jamna knows the appellants very well. She stated that when she woke up, she found that the appellants were standing in the house by the side of a wall. They, after the inmates of house woke up, ran away scaling the wall. She was cross-examined at length in which she maintained that the appellants had I entered into the house and found present. She stated that it is after this incident and after her son, committed suicide that her eyesight has been weakened but at the time of occurrence she had seen the appellants in her house. She is a reliable witness. ( 7 ) PW-2 Taruram and PW-6 Nandram do not support the version of prosecution. But PW-6 Nandram does say that when he reached in the house of Amru Ram he and Taruram were told that the appellants had entered into the house. PW-3 Smt. Kesar has not been believed by the learned trial Judge for offence under Section 376, IPC. But it is proved from her statement that both the appellants had entered into the house. Similarly, PW-5 Amru Ram has proved the story of prosecution that he woke up and saw both the appellants in the Court yard who scaled the wall and ran away. But it is proved from her statement that both the appellants had entered into the house. Similarly, PW-5 Amru Ram has proved the story of prosecution that he woke up and saw both the appellants in the Court yard who scaled the wall and ran away. ( 8 ) INVESTIGATING Officer Hart Singh Rathore PW-7 deposed that Ex. P I 4 report was received at police station by Registered Post on which a case under Sections 376. 457 and 306. IPC was registered and investigated. He went at the site and prepared Ex. P/6 site plan. He also recorded statements of witnesses and completed all other formalities. He arrested the appellants. From reappreciation of the evidence recorded by learned Sessions Judge. I find it well proved that the appellants did commit house trespass. They had entered into the house as they were found inside the house. But there is no direct evidence that they had scaled the wall in order to enter into the house as the site plan Ex. P/6 proved by PW-7 Hart Singh Rathore. Investigating Officer does not state that there was any closed gate leading to the courtyard. Entry of the appellants in the courtyard is proved beyond doubt i. e. a simpliciter house trespass. ( 9 ) LEARNED Counsel for the appellants cited State v. Bhanwaria in which the facts were that the accused entered upon the house of a person on the invitation of his wife to commit adultery and the High Court convicted Bhanwaria for offence under Section 448, IPC and in which accused was given benefit under the Probation of Offenders Act. In the present case, the prosecution was not able to prove that the appellants had committed offence under Section 376, IPC. Only their entry is proved which is punishable under Section 448, IPC as per the law laid down by Rajasthan High Court in State v. Bhanwanas case (supra ). ( 10 ) SO far as sentence is concerned, learned Counsel, submitted that the incident is said to have taken place some time in August, 1981 and the appellants have been undergoing mental tension for all these 18 years. They have also undergone financial loss and sentence, which they have undergone (from 14-9-1981 to 20-9-1981) is sufficient in this case. Learned Public Prosecutor submitted that too much lenient view should not be taken. They have also undergone financial loss and sentence, which they have undergone (from 14-9-1981 to 20-9-1981) is sufficient in this case. Learned Public Prosecutor submitted that too much lenient view should not be taken. Looking to all the facts and circumstances, I am of the view that only the jail sentence already undergone is sufficient punishment in this case. ( 11 ) CONSEQUENTLY, the appeal is partly accepted. Conviction of appellants is altered from Section 451 to Section 448, IPC and they are sentenced to the period already undergone. Appeal allowed partly. .