Judgment:
CRR No.711 of 2014 (O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRR No.711 of 2014 (O&M) Date of Decision : 08.07.2014 Som Dutt .....Petitioner Versus State of Haryana .....Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE Mr.JUSTICE R.P.NAGRATH Present: Mr.M.S.Khillan, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr.Anil Kumar, DAG, Haryana.
R.P.Nagrath, J.
(Oral) CRM No.7166 of 2014 For the reasons mentioned in the application the same is allowed and delay of 44 days in filing the instant revision is condoned.
CRR No.711 of 2014 (O&M) The instant revision has been filed to challenge the concurrent findings of both the Courts below convicting the petitioner on the charges under Sections 451, 354 and 506 of Indian Penal Code (IPC).The learned trial Court sentenced the petitioner to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year each and to pay fine of ` 500/- each, in default of payment of fine to further undergo simple imprisonment for one month, under Sections 451 and 354 IPC; and under Section 506 IPC, to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three months and to pay fine of ` 250/-, in default of payment of fine to further undergo simple imprisonment for seven days.
The aforesaid sentences were also affirmed by the appellate Court.
Jitender kumar 2014.07.10 16:15 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh CRR No.711 of 2014 (O&M) -2- The facts in brief are that FIR was registered by Manga Ram father of 14/15 years old girl, whose modesty was outraged.
On 22.01.2007, the family was sleeping in the rooms of their residential house.
At about 11.00 p.m., petitioner entered the room of daughter of the complainant by committing house trespass by scaling over the wall of home.
The petitioner tried to outrage the modesty of daughter of the complainant.
The girl raised hue and cry and all the family members woke up.
The petitioner ran away after jumping over the wall.
While running away the petitioner intimidated the girl not to disclose the incident to any family member.
The complainant himself appeared as PW-1.
The girl was examined as PW-2 and her brother as PW-3 in support of the incident.
According to the girl examined as PW-2, she and her two brothers were sleeping in a room whereas her parents were sleeping in the separate room.
According to PW-2, the petitioner tried to outrage her modesty.
He statedly applied his hands on her breasts when she immediately woke up.
She started weeping and the petitioner also gagged her mouth.
In the meantime, brothers of the girl woke up.
Her mother was also examined to support of this version.
There was no suggestion to the witnesses about any prior enmity.
Certain discrepancies were pointed out which were found to be quite insignificant.
Learned petitioner's counsel has not assailed the merits of conclusion of Courts below, holding the petitioner guilty of charges framed against him.
The perusal of judgments of both the Courts below would also show that there is correct appreciation of evidence Jitender kumar 2014.07.10 16:15 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh CRR No.711 of 2014 (O&M) -3- by analyzing the examination of witnesses on the charges.
There is no scope of interference in the concurrent findings of Courts below in exercise of revisional jurisdiction unless those findings are shown to be in ignorance of the material on record or that the findings are perverse.
The conviction recorded by Courts below would thus stand affirmed.
The only argument of learned counsel for the petitioner was that the petitioner having undergone about more than six months of imprisonment should be considered enough punishment in the circumstances of the case.
There is custody certificate dated 24.04.2014 placed on record by learned State counsel.
There was no medical examination of the girl.
In view of the nature of allegations for constituting the offence under Section 354 IPC, I would find that period of imprisonment already undergone by the petitioner would be sufficient punishment in the circumstances of the case.
Therefore, the sentence of imprisonment for offences under Sections 451 and 354 IPC is reduced from one year rigorous imprisonment to the period already undergone, maintaining the amount of fine imposed for various sections and the default clause.
With the aforesaid modification in the sentences awarded to the petitioner as reduced to the period already undergone, the instant revision is dismissed on merits.
July 08, 2014 ( R.P.NAGRATH ) jk JUDGE Jitender kumar 2014.07.10 16:15 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh