JUDGMENT :

1. Heard learned AGA for the State and perused the record.

2. This appeal, at the behest of the State, has been preferred against the judgment and order dated 18.10.2005, passed by the Additional Sessions Judge/F.T.C., Maharajganj, acquitting accused-respondent, who has been tried for commission of offence under Sections 376 and 511 of Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as, ‘I.P.C’).

3. The State of Uttar Pradesh has felt aggrieved while convicting the accused. The learned trial Judge has convicted under Section 354 of the Indian Penal Code as the learned Judge has considered the case under Section 354 as though the charge against the accused was for commission of offence under Section 376 of IPC and 511 IPC. The said offences were held to be not proved. The accused had entered the house of his uncle and aunt and tried to ravish her. The learned Judge has considered the judgment in Shiv Shankar v. State of Uttar Pradesh reported in 2002 Crl. Law Journal 2673 and come to the conclusion that he held lost the right of being in the house of the uncle and, therefore, he has been considered to be an accused and is punished for committing offence under Section 457 IPC also