Criminal Revision No. 1538 of 2011 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Criminal Revision No. 1538 of 2011 Date of decision : 9.11.2011. Kuldip Singh alias Deepa ................ Petitioner vs. State of Punjab ................. Respondent CORAM :- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K.C.PURI. 1. Whether Reporters of Local Newspapers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? Present: Ms. Harpreet Kaur, Advocate for Shri H.S.Baath, Advocate for the petitioner. Ms. Simsi Dhir Malhotra, Deputy Advocate General, Punjab. K.C. PURI, J. This is revision petition against the judgment dated 29.4.2011 passed by Shri Nirmal Singh, learned Additional Sessions Judge, Tarn Taran vide which the appeal preferred by the accused-petitioner against the judgment and order 10.11.2009 passed by Shri Rajvinder Singh, learned Criminal Revision No. 1538 of 2011 2 Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Patti, was dismissed. 2. The case of the prosecution in brief is that on 16.9.2005 at about 7.00a.m., as per daily routine, complainant and her brother Avtar Singh left their residence on their separate bicycles for going to School and her brother was coming behind her. When she reached at some distance near behak of Ajit Singh, she noticed that accused who stopped his cycle in front of her cycle and he started teasing her breasts by catching her from her arms. However, the accused asked the complainant to inform anyone as he does not care for them. On seeing her brother, the accused fled away from the spot. The matter was reported to the police. Investigation commenced and during investigation accused was arrested and after completion of necessary investigation, challan against the accused was presented in the Court for trial. 3. On appearance of the accused, copies of the documents were supplied to him and on finding a prima facie case charge under Sections 354 and 506 IPC was framed against him and he pleaded not guilty thereto and claimed trial. 4. In order to prove its case, prosecution has examined as many as five witnesses in support of its case. 5. In his statement recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C., the accused denied all the allegations and claimed his innocence. He did not lead any evidence in defence. 6. The trial Court after hearing the learned counsel for the parties, convicted the accused vide judgment and dated 10.11.2009 and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year and to pay a Criminal Revision No. 1538 of 2011 3 fine of Rs.1000/- and in default to payment of fine to further undergo rigorour imprisonment for a period of 30 days under Section 354 IPC and to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year and to pay a fine of Rs.1000/- under Section 506 IPC and in default of payment of fine, the accused was further sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of thirty days. However, both the sentences were ordered to run concurrently. 7. Feeling dissatisfied with the aforesaid judgment and order, the accused-appellant preferred appeal before learned Sessions Judge, Tarn Taran, the said learned Court dismissed the appeal vide judgment dated 29.4.2011. 8. Still feeling dissatisfied with the aforesaid judgments and order, the present revision petition has been directed by the accused-appellant. 9. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the records of the case with their able assistance. 10. Learned counsel for the appellant has not challenged the conviction recorded by both the Courts below but has prayed regarding reduction in the quantum of sentence. 11. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the alleged occurrence has taken place more than six years ago and since then the petitioner is undergoing the protracted trial. He is a young person of 25-26 years of age and has been convicted only under Sections 354 and 506 IPC. So, prayer has been made for reduction in sentence. 12. Prayer has been opposed by the learned State counsel. 13. I have carefully considered the said submission. Criminal Revision No. 1538 of 2011 4 14. As per custody certificate, the petitioner has already undergone incarceration for a period of six months and ten days as on 8.11.2011. He has been convicted under Sections 354 and 506 IPC and has been imposed sentence of one year under both the heads. Out of that sentence, he has already undergone more than half of the sentence. He is facing trial for the last more than six years. So, taking into account the totality of the circumstances, his sentence stands reduced to the period already undergone. 15. With the modification in the sentence, the revision petition stands disposed of accordingly. If the accused is not required in any other case, he be released forthwith. 16. A copy of this judgment be sent to the trial Court for strict compliance. ( K.C.PURI ) JUDGE November 09 , 2011 sv