Narendra Kumar Jain, J. - (1.) HEARD learned Counsel for the parties.
(2.) THE only contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioners is that the incident relates to the year 1990 and the petitioners have already remained in jail for about thirty -one days, therefore, their sentence of imprisonment of four months awarded by the appellate court may be reduced to a period of sentence already undergone by them and the amount of fine of Rs. 5,00/ - may be enhanced reasonably. The order of conviction passed by the trial court and affirmed by the appellate court has not been challenged by the learned Counsel for the petitioners, therefore, it is not necessary to refer and discuss the facts of the case in detail.
(3.) THE trial court, vide its judgment and order dated 30.07.1994, convicted and sentenced the accused -petitioners under Section 377, IPC, to one year rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 200/ -; in default of payment of fine to further undergo two months additional rigorous imprisonment. The appellate court, while affirming the order of conviction passed by the trial court, reduced the sentence of imprisonment from one year to four months simple imprisonment with fine of Rs. 500/ -; in default, to further undergo one month simple imprisonment.;