Criminal Revision No. 1809 of 2005 (O&M) 1 In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh Criminal Revision No. 1809 of 2005 (O&M) Date of decision: 26.10.2010 Jagtar Singh @ Baru ......Petitioner Versus State of Punjab .......Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SABINA Present: None for the petitioner. Mr.Amandeep Singh Rai, AAG, Punjab. **** SABINA, J. Petitioner was convicted for an offence under Sections 452/ 354 of the Indian Penal Code (“IPC” for short), vide judgment dated 4.1.2005 passed by the Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Dhuri. Vide order of the even date, the petitioner was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year with a fine of ` 500/- under Section 452 IPC and to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year with a fine of ` 500/- under Section 354 IPC. Both the sentences were ordered to run concurrently. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner preferred an appeal and the same was Criminal Revision No. 1809 of 2005 (O&M) 2 dismissed vide judgment dated 1.9.2005 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Sangrur. Hence, the present revision petition. Prosecution case, as noticed by the Appellate Court in para 2 of its judgment, is reproduced herein below:- “ Briefly stated, the case of the prosecution is that complainant Manjit Kaur got recorded her statement on 22.11.2000 Ex. P1 before ASI Malagar Singh (PW3) stating that she is a household lady having two daughters and one son. Her husband is a driver in Truck Union, Dhuri, and does not visits the house many days. One day prior to the statement, she was working in the house and her children were playing in the street and she had shut the door of the house and then at about 7.00 P.M., Jagtar Singh alias Dharu son of Karnail Singh, resident of village Rajo Majra, pushed opened the door and came in the court-yard of the house and he immediately took her in his grip stating that he is to kiss her and she tried to save herself and raised alarm and then immediately her neighbour Banta Singh came there and he raised lalkara asking Dharu to leave her. Then the accused ran away from the spot. The complainant further got recorded in her statement that the accused took her in his grip with bad intention. She had been waiting for her husband and on the said statement, the I.O. made his endorsement Ex. Criminal Revision No. 1809 of 2005 (O&M) 3 P2 resulting into the registration of the FIR Ex. P3. The I.O. also prepared rough site plan Ex. P4 of the place of occurrence and at the time of arrest of the accused, his personal search memo Ex. P5 was prepared and the grounds of arrest were intimated to him vide memo Ex. P6. After completion of the investigation and other formalities, challan against the accused was presented in the Court.” None has appeared on behalf of the petitioner. On the last date also, nobody had appeared on behalf of the petitioner. I have gone through the record of the case with the able assistance of learned State counsel. The present criminal proceedings were set in motion on the basis of the statement made by complainant Manjit Kaur. She stated that the petitioner had forcibly entered her house and had taken her in his grip. The complainant raised alarm which attracted her neighbour Banta Singh. Thereafter, the petitioner fled away from the spot. The statement of the complainant is duly supported by PW-2 Banta Singh. The reasons given by both the Courts below in the impugned judgments, after appreciating the evidence led on record, call for no interference as the conviction of the petitioner under Sections 452/ 354 IPC has been ordered for sound reasons. The petitioner has undergone more than three months of actual sentence and is facing the criminal proceedings since the year Criminal Revision No. 1809 of 2005 (O&M) 4 2000. Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the present case, it would be just and expedient to reduce the sentence qua imprisonment of the petitioner to already undergone by him Accordingly, conviction of the petitioner under Sections 452/ 354 IPC is maintained. However, the sentence qua imprisonment of the petitioner is reduced to already undergone by him. The petition stands disposed of accordingly. (SABINA) JUDGE October 26, 2010 anita