S.K.Chawla, J. - (1.)This is revision by an accused challenging his conviction and sentence for the offence of house trespass under Section 448, I.P.C.
(2.)The prosecution story was that on 1/11/1982 appellant/accused Tijulal had agreed to sell half portion of h is house in village Saleteka P.S. Balaghat to a Sub Engineer named Shishir Kumar Das (P.W. 7) for Rs. 10,751.00 and had also received earnest money of Rs. 151.00; vide agreement, Ex. P-5. This was followed by an oral agreement whereby the applicant agreed to sell the entire house for Rs. 21,000.00. Shishir Kumar Das paid from time to time up to July 1983 a total consideration of Rs. 18,551.00. He also received actual possession of the house in April, 1983. After Shishir Kumar Das had remained in possession of the house for about 2 years, the applicant in April 1985 forcibly entered into the possession of the house by breaking open its lock and started to live in it with his family. Shishir Kumar Das (P.W. 7) was transferred to another place and was not present when the house was actually broken open. His wife Smt. Anita Das (P.W. 6) who lived in the village protested to the applicant but the latter grated her with abuses. The applicant continues thereafter to live in the house with his family. On these facts the trial Magistrate convicted the applicant of the offence under Section 448, I.P.C. and sentenced him to simple imprisonment for 3 months. In appeal carried by the applicant, the learned Sessions Judge Balaghat affirmed the applicants conviction for the offence under Section 448 I.P.C. but reduced the sentence by substituting fine of Rs. 1,000.00, in default to simple imprisonment for 3 months, for the substantive sentence of simple imprisonment for 3 months. Now the accused has come in revision to the High Court.
(3.)Shri Surendra Singh, learned counsel for the applicant/accused, confined his submission to the question of sentence. It was argued by him that complainant Shishir Kumar Das had admittedly not paid the entire price of Rs. 21,000.00. Having obtained possession of the house, the complainant had unjustly delayed the payment of full price. In the circumstances the applicant in desperation and under provocation had taken back possession of the house. It was argued that considering the circumstances of the case even the sentence of fine of Rs. 1,000.00 awarded by the learned Sessions Judge was too harsh and severe and, the applicant deserved to be released on probation.