11. Leaving that apart, there is no reason to disbelieve the evidence of P.Ws.2 and 4 to 6 about the incident. The observation of the lower court is that in spite of giving sufficient opportunity, the attendance of the investigating officer was not caused and hence, his evidence was closed. The evidence of the investigating officer is important if by his non examination any prejudice is going to be caused to the accused. According to the main witnesses, they got no prior knowledge about the accused and they were not even knowing his name. According to P.W.1, on making enquiries, he came to know about the accused. It appears to be strange that such a person entered the house and caused the incident. It may be that the actual factum of committing the incident has not been brought to light for one reason or the other. In any case, in the circumstances enumerated, the non examination of the investigating officer is not fatal. Hence, on that score, the charges proved except the charge under Section 354 IPC cannot be said to be unsustainable. Therefore, the conviction of the accused under Section 323, 452 and 509 IPC will sustain. 12. Regarding the quantum of sentence imposed, imposition of simple imprisonment of three months under Section 323 IPC is quite reasonable. I also feel that it is reasonable to impose simple imprisonment for six months for the charge under Section 509, but I feel that it is not proper to impose the sentence of three years for the offence punishable under Section 452 IPC.
