JUDGMENT 1. 1. The State of Rajasthan has preferred this appeal under Section 377 Criminal Procedure Code for enhancement of conviction against the judgment dated 31.8.1999 passed by learned Special Judge & Addl. Sessions Judge, Alwar (Rajasthan) (for short 'the learned Appellate Court') in criminal Appeal No. 20/1999. 2. Brief facts of the case are that on 12.5.1992 Bajrang s/o Lala along-with his mother Smt. Kiran submitted a written report at Police Station Kotwali, Alwar to this effect that on that day at 11:00 AM Bajrang after playing, was coming to his home. When at that time he came in 'Poli' then his neighbour Famman s/o Kalicharan, after shutting his mouth took with him in the room of his home and closed the door and at that nobody was present in his home. It was also mentioned in the written report that informant was laid down on the cot and committed unnatural offence with him. Because of pain, he cried. The accused respondent kept informant dosed in the room for two hours and left him after getting success in unnatural lust. When the informant escaped himself from this, he immediately went to his home and narrated whole facts to his mother. 3. The police on the basis of this written report registered an FIR No. 460/1992, for the offence under Sections 377 and 442 IPC. 4. The Police after usual investigation submitted challan against the accused respondent. The charge was read over to the accused respondent, who pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried in the matter. 5. The prosecution in support of its case examined as many as 6 witnesses. 6. Thereafter the statement of the accused-respondent under Section 313 Criminal Procedure Code was recorded. 7. After conclusion of the trial, the learned Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate No.1, Alwar (for short 'the learned trial court') convicted the accused respondent for the offence under Sections 377 Indian Penal Code for a period of two years Rigorous Imprisonment and Rs. 500/- fine and in case of default in payment of fine, the accused respondent shall undergo six months' simple imprisonment and under Section 324 Indian Penal Code for a period of one month and Rs. 200/- fine and in case of default of payment of fine, the accused respondent shall undergo one month simple imprisonment, vide judgment dated 29.7.1999. 8. 500/- fine and in case of default in payment of fine, the accused respondent shall undergo six months' simple imprisonment and under Section 324 Indian Penal Code for a period of one month and Rs. 200/- fine and in case of default of payment of fine, the accused respondent shall undergo one month simple imprisonment, vide judgment dated 29.7.1999. 8. The accused respondent feeling aggrieved with the impugned Judgment of conviction and sentence dated 29.7.1999 preferred criminal appeal before learned Special Judge & Addl. Sessions Judge, Alwar (for short the 'learned Appellate Court'). 9. The learned Appellate Court after hearing both the parties and taking into consideration the entire material available on record, vide its Judgment dated 31.8.1999 gave benefit of Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act to the accused respondent. 10. The State of Rajasthan feeling aggrieved with the impugned Judgment dated 31.8.1999 passed by learned Appellate Court, has preferred this appeal before this Hon'ble Court. 11. In this appeal it has been submitted by the learned Public Prosecutor that the learned Appellate Court has not properly considered the stalment of the prosecution witnesses and wrongly given the benefit of section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act to the accused respondent. Thus, the impugned judgment dated 31.8.1999 passed by learned Appellate Court is erroneous one and is liable to be quashed and set aside. 12. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the accused-respondent has submitted that the impugned judgment passed by the learned Appellate Court is based on the correct appreciation of evidence and after giving cogent reasons, the learned Appellate Court has rightly given benefit of Section 4 of Probation of Offenders Act to the accused respondent. He further submits that most of the prosecution witnesses have made improvements, omissions and contradictions in their testimony. Thus, the impugned Judgment dated 31.8.1999 passed by the learned Appellate Court need no interference of this Court. 13. I have heard learned Public Prosecutor as well as the learned counsel for the accused-respondent and also gone through the record of the case. 14. Having gone through the impugned judgment 31.8.1999 passed by the learned Appellate Court, I find that the learned Appellate Court has rightly given benefit of Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act to the accused respondent. 15. 14. Having gone through the impugned judgment 31.8.1999 passed by the learned Appellate Court, I find that the learned Appellate Court has rightly given benefit of Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act to the accused respondent. 15. Accordingly this appeal filed by the State of Rajasthan fails and the same is hereby dismissed, after confirming the judgment dated 31.8.1999 passed by learned Special Judge & Addl. Sessions Judge, Alwar (Rajasthan) in Criminal Appeal No. 20/1999.Appeal dismissed. *******