Jarnail Singh Vs. - Court Judgment

SooperKanoon Citationsooperkanoon.com/1153608
CourtPunjab and Haryana High Court
Decided OnJun-30-2014
AppellantJarnail Singh
Excerpt:
crr-1221-2014 -1- in the high court of punjab and haryana at chandigarh. crl. revision no.1221 of 2014 (o&m) date of decision: june 30, 2014. jarnail singh ......petitioner(s).versus state of punjab ....respondent(s).coram:- hon'ble mr.justice surinder gupta present: mr.vivek goel, advocate for the petitioner (s).ms.shivali, a.a.g., punjab. ******* surinder gupta, j.(oral) heard. as per the case of the prosecution, petitioner on 24.12.2009 at about 10.00/11.00 p.m., intruded the house of complainant, who was residing with her grand mother-in-law (dadi sass).caught hold of her arm, pressed her breasts and tried to drag her forcibly inside the room. on raula (alarm) being raised by her, petitioner ran away. the trial court has awarded the substantive sentence of rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year to the petitioner for the offence punishable under section 452 indian penal code (for short 'ipc') and for a period of six months for the offence punishable under section 354 ipc. learned counsel for the petitioner submits that complainant and mehta sachin 2014.07.03 15:07 i attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document chandigarh crr-1221-2014 -2- the petitioner are next door neighbours.the petitioner has suffered the agony of trial and his conviction for more than four years.he is not a previous convict and is the only bread winner of the family. he has already suffered for his misdeeds by undergoing the imprisonment for more than three months. he has requested for the release of petitioner on probation of good conduct or by awarding the sentence already undergone by him. learned state counsel has argued that petitioner and complainant were next door neighbours but this has not given the petitioner a licence to enter her house and outrage her modesty. the fact that petitioner is not a previous convict and is next door neighbour of complainant has, however, not been denied. keeping in view all the above facts and circumstances, the nature of offence and the antecedents of the petitioner, i am of the considered opinion that the interest of justice shall be fully met if the sentence of imprisonment awarded to the petitioner for offence punishable under section 452 ipc is reduced to rigorous imprisonment for six months. the sentence of fine and the sentence awarded for the offence punishable under section 354 ipc are, however, maintained. this petition is partly allowed as per the above terms.copy of this order be sent to the trial court and the chief judicial magistrate, faridkot for information and further necessary action. ( surinder gupta ) june 30, 2014. judge sachin m. mehta sachin 2014.07.03 15:07 i attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document chandigarh
Judgment:

CRR-1221-2014 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH.

Crl.

Revision No.1221 of 2014 (O&M) Date of Decision: June 30, 2014.

Jarnail Singh ......PETITIONER(s).VERSUS State of Punjab ....RESPONDENT(s).CORAM:- HON'BLE Mr.JUSTICE SURINDER GUPTA Present: Mr.Vivek Goel, Advocate for the petitioner (s).Ms.Shivali, A.A.G., Punjab.

******* SURINDER GUPTA, J.(Oral) Heard.

As per the case of the prosecution, petitioner on 24.12.2009 at about 10.00/11.00 P.M., intruded the house of complainant, who was residing with her grand mother-in-law (Dadi Sass).caught hold of her arm, pressed her breasts and tried to drag her forcibly inside the room.

On raula (alarm) being raised by her, petitioner ran away.

The trial Court has awarded the substantive sentence of rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year to the petitioner for the offence punishable under Section 452 Indian Penal Code (for short 'IPC') and for a period of six months for the offence punishable under Section 354 IPC.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that complainant and Mehta Sachin 2014.07.03 15:07 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CHANDIGARH CRR-1221-2014 -2- the petitioner are next door neighbouRs.The petitioner has suffered the agony of trial and his conviction for more than four yeaRs.He is not a previous convict and is the only bread winner of the family.

He has already suffered for his misdeeds by undergoing the imprisonment for more than three months.

He has requested for the release of petitioner on probation of good conduct or by awarding the sentence already undergone by him.

Learned State counsel has argued that petitioner and complainant were next door neighbours but this has not given the petitioner a licence to enter her house and outrage her modesty.

The fact that petitioner is not a previous convict and is next door neighbour of complainant has, however, not been denied.

Keeping in view all the above facts and circumstances, the nature of offence and the antecedents of the petitioner, I am of the considered opinion that the interest of justice shall be fully met if the sentence of imprisonment awarded to the petitioner for offence punishable under Section 452 IPC is reduced to rigorous imprisonment for six months.

The sentence of fine and the sentence awarded for the offence punishable under Section 354 IPC are, however, maintained.

This petition is partly allowed as per the above terMs.Copy of this order be sent to the trial Court and the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Faridkot for information and further necessary action.

( SURINDER GUPTA ) June 30, 2014.

JUDGE Sachin M.

Mehta Sachin 2014.07.03 15:07 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CHANDIGARH