Crl. Revision No.15 of 2002. 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Crl. Revision No.15 of 2002. DECIDED ON : 9.3.2009. Darshan Singh Petitioner VERSUS State of Punjab. Respondent. CORAM HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JORA SINGH Present: Mr.Naresh Kaushal, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. D.S.Brar, Deputy Advocate General, Punjab for the respondent. JORA SINGH,J. Darshan Singh preferred this revision against the judgment dated 6.12.2001 rendered by Additional Sessions Judge, Patiala vide which the judgment/ order of the Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Rajpura dated 5.10.2000 was upheld in First Information Report No. 117 dated 9.10.1995, Police Station Sadar Rajpura under Sections 354, 452 and 506 I.P.C. Revisionist was directed to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year and to pay a fine of Rs. 1000/- and in default, to further undergo rigorous Crl. Revision No.15 of 2002. 2 imprisonment for two months for an offence under Section 452 of the Indian Penal Code; Revisionist was further directed to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year and to pay a fine of Rs. 500/- and in default, to further rigorous imprisonment for one month for an offence under Section 354 of the Indian Penal Code; Revisionist was directed to pay a fine of Rs. 500/- and in default, to further rigorous imprisonment for one months for an offence under Section 506 of the Indian Penal Code; All the substantive sentences were ordered to run concurrently. Prosecution story, in brief, is that Murti daughter of Karnail Singh was married with Sadhu Singh about four years back. Murti was present in her parental house on 8.10.1995 at about 3 P.M. she was alone in the house. Darshan Singh had gone to the house of Murti and she was caught hold by Darshan Singh with malafide intention to outrage her modesty. Murti raised an alarm and on hearing raula Gulzar Kaur came to the spot. On seeing, Gulzar Kaur, Darshan Singh had fled away from the spot. Matter was brought to the notice of the police then First Information No. 117 dated 9.10.1995 under Sections 354, 452 and 506 I.P.C. was registered. Crl. Revision No.15 of 2002. 3 Accused was charged under Sections 354, 452 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. In order to substantiate its case against the accused, the prosecution examined four witnesses and closed its evidence. After close of the prosecution evidence, the accused was examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C. to explain the allegations levelled against him to which he denied all the allegations and claimed to be innocent. In defence two DWs were produced. Against the judgment/order dated 5.10.2000 of the trial Court, appeal was preferred but the appeal was dismissed vide judgment dated 6.12.2001. I have heard learned counsel for the revisionist, Mr. D.S.Brar, Deputy Advocate General, Punjab for the respondent and have gone through the evidence on the file very carefully and thoroughly. Learned counsel for the revisionist argued that judgment of the trial Court is not challenged on the point of conviction. Occurrence is dated 8.10.1995. At that time revisionist was 35 years old. The learned counsel requested that lenient view be taken on the point of sentence. Crl. Revision No.15 of 2002. 4 Mr. D.S.Brar, Deputy Advocate General, Punjab for the respondent argued that admittedly occurrence is dated 8.10.1995. Revisionist is the first offender but he had gone to the house of Murti to outrage her modesty. Offence is serious. If lenient view is to be taken then revisionist be directed to pay heavy fine payable to the victim as compensation. As per submission of the learned defence counsel for the revisionist, judgment of the First Appellate Court is not challenged on the point of conviction. As such, judgment under challenge is upheld. Revisionist is the first offender and was 35 years old at the time of occurrence dated 8.10.1995. Revisionist belong to a poor family and has minor children to support. Ends of justice would be fully met, if lenient view is taken, because revisionist has already undergone more than one month. Instead of directing the revisionist to undergo imprisonment as ordered by the trial Court, revisionist is directed to undergo imprisonment , as already undergone subject to payment Rs.20,000/- more as fine. Rs.20,000/- is to be deposited within two months from today before the Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Rajpura. Payment deposited is to be paid to the victim namely Murti as compensation. Crl. Revision No.15 of 2002. 5 With this modification, Criminal Revision No.15 of 2002, is dismissed. 9.3.2009 ( JORA SINGH ) Anoop JUDGE