SANDEEP MEHTA, J. - (1.) The appellant herein has been convicted and sentenced as below by the impugned judgment dated 22.7.1993 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Bali in Sessions Case No. 25/92. Offences Imprisonment Fine amount Default Sentences; Under Section 457 I.P.C. Three Years RIRs.500/-Two Months Additional R.I. Under Section 354 I.P.C. Two Years R.I.Rs.500/-Two Months Additional R.I. All the sentences were ordered to run concurrently.
(2.) Learned Counsel Shri Suresh Kumbhat does not question the conviction of the appellant and rather submits that the incident took place way back in the year 1992. The appellant has remained in custody for about one week during the pendency of investigation and thus, rather than immediately sending him behind the bars, the appellant deserves to be extended benefit of probation. His alternative submission was that the sentence awarded to the appellant may be reduced to the period already undergone by him.
(3.) Learned Public Prosecutor on the other hand, vehemently and fervently opposed the submissions advanced by appellants Counsel and urged that the appellant has been held guilty of committing lurking house trespass in the house of the complainant and tried to outrage her modesty in the early hours of morning and thus, his conviction as recorded by the Trial Court does not warrant any interference nor is the accused entitled to any leniency on the aspect of sentence.;