IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Crl. R. No.122 of 2011 Date of Decision:5.4.2011 Sandeep .... Petitioner Versus State of Haryana .... Respondents CORAM: Hon'ble Ms. Justice Nirmaljit Kaur Present: Mr. Surender Deswal, Advocate and Mr. Sandeep Gehlawat, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Amit Rana, D.A.G. Haryana. **** 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? NIRMALJIT KAUR, J.(Oral) Assailed in this revision is the judgment dated 5.1.2011 passed by Addl. Sessions Judge, Jind, dismissing the appeal of the petitioner against the judgment dated 12.5.2010, passed by Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Safidon (Jind), convicting the accused-petitioner under Sections 452/354 IPC and sentencing him as under: U/s : 452 IPC To undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year and to pay a fine of Rs.500. U/s: 354 IPC To undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year and to pay a fine of Rs. 500/-. However, both the sentences were ordered to run concurrently. Facts in brief are that the petitioner had tried to molest the daughter of the complainant for which an FIR was got registered against him. The petitioner was tried, convicted and sentenced as aforesaid. There are the judgments of two courts below, who have concurrently appreciated the evidence and held the petitioner responsible for the commission of the crime. No material irregularity much less legal infirmity has been pointed out so as to warrant interference with the impugned judgments. Accordingly, notice of motion was issued regarding the sentence part only. Crl. R. No.122 of 2011 -2- As a last result, it has been contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that a lenient view may be taken on the point of sentence. Learned counsel for the petitioner has stated that out of the total sentence of one year, the petitioner has already undergone 3 months. It is further stated that case against the petitioner was registered in the year 2007 and he has faced agony of criminal proceeding since then. He has also relied upon the judgment of this Court rendered in the case of Hamir Singh v. State of Punjab 2009(3) R.C.R. (Criminal) 64 whereby the accused was released on probation and it has been held in para 5 as under: “I have given my thoughtful consideration to the contentions of the learned counsel for the parties and also perused the records of the case. This Court in Parkash v. State of Haryana, 1986(1) Recent Criminal Reports 94 considered the case where the accused in the said case had committed assault on the prosecutrix therein while she was cutting grass in her fields. The accused therein came from behind the prosecutrix and took her in his grip and outraged her modesty. The prosecutrix in the said case suffered bruises on her breasts, arms, hands and feet. On raising alarm, a few women came there and on seeing them, the accused let alone the prosecutrix. This Court considered the case and it was observed that the accused therein was a co-villager of the prosecutrix and was a young man of 20 years of age at the time of commission of the offence. It was observed that though his offence was definitely against the accepted morals of our society yet he was not a gone case never to be reclaimed back by the civilized society. In the circumstances, he was ordered to be released on probation under Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act. In Bijender v. State of Haryana, 1996(1) Recent Criminal Reports 192, this Court considered the case of the accused who had been convicted for the offence under Section 354 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for two years, besides, to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/-. The accused in the said case at the time of Crl. R. No.122 of 2011 -3- commission of the offence was below 21 years of age. He had been facing trial for a period of five and a half years and was not a previous convict. In the circumstances, he was granted the benefit of probation.” Having heard counsel for the petitioner on the point of sentence, it may be observed that the case against the petitioner was registered in the year 2007 and he has faced agony of criminal proceeding since then. Moreover, he is a first offender and has already undergone 3 months of sentence. As such, the ends of justice would be met, if the petitioner is extended the benefit of probation. Consequently, while maintaining the conviction of the petitioner, he is released on probation under Section 4(1) of the Probation of offenders Act, 1958 on his executing a bond to the satisfaction of the trial Court for the remaining period of the sentence within which period he shall continue to be of good behaviour and keep peace and in case of breach of conditions of the bond he will be ready to serve sentence as and when called for. Accordingly, the present revision petition is disposed of with the modification in the sentence as above. 5.4.2011 ( NIRMALJIT KAUR ) rajeev JUDGE