Crl. Rev. No.441 of 2002 [1] IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Criminal Revision No.441 of 2002 Date of Decision: 16 - 3 - 2010 Main Pal .....Petitioner v. State of Haryana .....Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA *** Present: Mr.Ashish Aggarwal, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr.Manish Deswal, DAG, Haryana. Mr.Jonny Goyal, Advocate for Mr.Sanjiv Gupta, Advocate for the complainant. *** KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA, J. (ORAL) The present revision petition has been preferred by Main Pal son of Lila Ram. The Court of Judicial Magistrate IInd Class, Karnal found the petitioner guilty of offence under Sections 354 and 452 IPC and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/-. In default of payment of fine, to further undergo simple imprisonment for one month. Aggrieved against the same, the petitioner preferred an appeal. The lower Appellate Court having found no merit in the appeal, dismissed the same. In the present case, FIR was registered on the statement made by Parkash Devi PW1. In her statement Ex.P1 Parkash Devi PW1 stated that on the night intervening 22/23.3.1996, she along with her daughter-in- Crl. Rev. No.441 of 2002 [2] law had retired to bed after taking meals and no male member was present in the house, except the children. At about 11.30 P.M., accused jumped over the wall, came inside the house and broke the bulbs which were emitting light. Her child woke up and the accused went out side the house. At about 12.30 P.M., accused again came back in the house and made an attempt to outrage the modesty of her daughter-in-law Sheela Devi. On the noise raised, accused ran away from the spot. The aforesaid FIR was investigated and report under Section 173 Cr.P.C. was submitted. Charges were framed against the petitioner on 8.7.1997. The first charge stated that on 23.3.1996 accused made a preparation for causing hurt and assault by committing house trespass in the house of Parkash Devi and committed an offence punishable under Section 452 IPC. Second charge stated that on the same date, time and place, he assaulted and used criminal force against Parkash Devi with an intention to outrage her modesty and thereby committed an offence under Section 354 IPC. The accused pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. Prosecution examined Parkash Devi as PW1. She reiterated the version as to what was stated in the FIR. She further stated that Sheela Devi was married to her son Jaivir. In cross-examination, this witness stated that her son Mahavir used to reside with her. This witness was confronted with a portion of the FIR Ex.PW3/A, where it was recorded that her son had left the house after he woke up. This part of the cross-examination cannot be read in isolation as in the beginning of her statement she had stated that no male member was present. At the time of occurrence, only children were present. My attention has been drawn to a portion of her statement where Crl. Rev. No.441 of 2002 [3] this witness stated that accused had not touched Parkash Devi and made no attempt or assault to outrage her modesty. Sheela Devi appeared as PW2. She stated that accused when entered in the house, caught hold of her hands. Inspector Raghubir Singh, Investigating Officer appeared as PW3. Thereafter, the evidence of the prosecution was closed by order of the Court. Statement of the accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C. was recorded. He denied all incriminating circumstances put to him. Rukam Singh, Ex-Sarpanch was examined as DW1. He stated that on 23.3.1996, a fight had taken place between son of the complainant and the accused pertaining to a dispute relating to the water-course. He stated that due to that dispute security proceedings were held. The appellant has not proved on record any document from which it could be inferred as to what was the reason for the security proceedings. This Court cannot become oblivious of the fact that in case any person makes an attempt to outrage the modesty of a woman, it is quite probable that on the next day, the parties may fight and the security proceedings may ensue. It cannot be comprehended that to settle the water dispute, reputation of a woman of the family will be put at stake and allegations will be levelled against the accused to spoil image of a young bride. Parkash Devi PW1 clearly stated that she was sleeping on a separate cot adjoining the cot of Sheela Devi PW2. From the testimony of Sheela Devi PW2, ingredients of offence under Section 354 IPC are made out. Both the Courts below have placed implicit reliance on the testimonies of Parkash Devi PW1 and Sheela Devi PW2. No case is made Crl. Rev. No.441 of 2002 [4] out to disturb the well reasoned findings recorded by both the Courts below. The argument raised that the trial Court had committed a grave error by framing a charge that petitioner had made an attempt to outrage the modesty of Parkash Devi PW1 has been rightly rejected on the ground that no prejudice has been caused to the petitioner. The lower Appellate Court to arrive at this conclusion has placed reliance on a decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in State of Himachal Pradesh v. Gita Ram, 2000(4) Recent Criminal Reports 97. Hence, no ground is made out to formulate an opinion different than the one recorded by both the Courts below. At this stage, Mr.Ashish Aggarwal, counsel for the petitioner states that the occurrence pertains to the year 1996. Petitioner has been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months only. He has suffered a mental pain and agony of the protracted trial. Counsel prays that in view of this reason, the sentence be reduced to the period already undergone. This Court could have given due consideration to the argument advanced but at the same time, it cannot be ignored that the offence has been committed against a woman. However, taking into consideration that the petitioner had suffered mental pain and agony of the protracted trial, this Court is of the view that the ends of justice will be fully met in case the sentence is suitably reduced. Accordingly, the sentence from six months rigorous imprisonment is reduced to four months rigorous imprisonment. With the aforesaid observations, the present revision petition is disposed of. ( KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA ) March 16, 2010. JUDGE RC Crl. Rev. No.441 of 2002 [5]