JUDGMENT :

1. The appellant has preferred the instant appeal under Section 374 (2) of the CrPC being aggrieved of the judgment dated 20.04.2008 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track), Banswara in Sessions Case No.95/2008, whereby he has been convicted and sentenced in the following manner :-

2. Briefly stated, facts relevant and essential for disposal of the case are that on 12.10.2008 at 11.30 a.m., complainant Khema submitted an oral report at the Police Station Ambapura to the effect that he was engaged in the work of agriculture and sorcery. His son Munshi was living separately and he had given him land, well, cattle etc., still he used to ask for share in the income earned by sorcery and on refusal, he had threatened to kill the complainant and his wife. On 11.10.2008, he alongwith his wife Kali, son-in-law Narayan, daughter Santosh and house-help Nirma were sleeping in the house. In the night at about 11.00 p.m. his son Munshi came and asked for money and tractor, but they did not open the gate due to fear, on which Munshi broke open the door with a rod and asked for keys of the tractor. When he refused for the same, the accused started assaulting him, his wife and son-in-law with kicks and fists. He damaged the house with iron rod and also broke the cot. When Santosh and Nirma made a hue and cry, the complainant's brother Heera came there and upon his intervention, the accused ran away. A damage of Rs.25,000/- was caused in the incident.

3. On the basis of aforesaid report, FIR No.147/2008 for the offences under Sections 458, 323, 327 and 427 of the IPC was registered and after usual investigation, a charge-sheet was filed against the present appellant for the offences under Sections 459, 327, 329, 427 and 325 of the IPC.

4. The learned trial court framed charges against the appellant for the offences under Sections 459, 323, 325 and 329 of the IPC and upon denial of guilt by him, commenced the trial. During the course of trial, as many as 11 witnesses were examined and 26 documents were exhibited. Thereafter, an explanation was sought from the accused-appellant under Section 313 Cr.P.C., in which he denied the prosecution allegations and claimed that he has been falsely implicated in the case. No evidence was adduced in defence. Then, after hearing the learned Public Prosecutor and the learned Defence Counsel and upon meticulous appreciation of the evidence, learned trial Judge convicted and sentenced the appellant in the manner stated above vide judgment dated 20.04.2008, which is under assail before this court in the instant appeal.

5. After arguing on merits to some extent, learned counsel for the appellant does not wish to press the present appeal in respect of the judgment of conviction passed by the learned trial court and preferred to make submissions on the point of sentence only. He submits that the incident pertains to the year 2008. The appellant is the son of the complainant. The complainant himself has admitted that he had previously falsely implicated the appellant in a criminal case in place of his another son Chhagan in order to save him from punishment and to save himself from MACT claim and in that case the appellant had been facing trial for 3 years and this was the reason for the attack made by him. The appellant is a poor person belonging