Criminal Revision No. 2294 of 2011 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Criminal Revision No. 2294 of 2011 Date of decision : 11.11.2011. Rajpal ................ Petitioner vs. State of Haryana ................. 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: Sh. Dhirinder Chopra, Advocate for the petitioner. K.C. PURI, J. This is a revision petition directed against the judgment dated 7.9.2011 passed by Shri Ramendra Jain, learned Sessions Judge, Jind vide which the appeal preferred by the accused-petitioner against the judgment and order dated 16.4.2011 passed by Shri Chander Hass, the then learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Jind, sentencing the accused/petitioner to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of two years and to pay a fine of Rs.1000/- and in default of payment of fine to further undergo SI for one Criminal Revision No. 2294 of 2011 2 month for offence under Section 452 IPC and to further to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of two years and to pay a fine of Rs.1000/- for offence under Section 354 IPC and in default of payment of fine to further undergo SI for one month, was dismissed. 2. The case of the prosecution in brief is that on 16.8.2009, prosecutrix made a statement before the police that she had a daughter aged six months. Around 10 p.m., on 14.8.2009, after taking dinner, she along with her daughter slept on a cot in a room of her house whereas her husband Ram Niwas had slept on another cot in the courtyard in front of her room. Electricity light of her room was on and its door was also open. Around 11 p.m., she felt touch of a hand of some one on her breast as a result of which she woke up and saw that her neighbourer Rajpal accused-appellant was moving his hands over her breasts. The door of her room was closed. She raised a noise upon which her husband woke up. He opened the door and immediately thereafter accused-appellant fled away. The petitioner had outraged her modesty by moving his hands over her breasts after entering into her house during the night time. On the aforesaid statement of the complainant, the present case was registered against the accused. The investigation commenced. The accused was arrested. Statements of the PWs were recorded and after completion of the 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 452 of the IPC was framed against him and he pleaded not guilty thereto and claimed trial. Criminal Revision No. 2294 of 2011 3 4. In order to prove its case, prosecution has examined prosecutrix as PW-1, ASI Om Parkash as PW-2, HC Ram Dia as PW-3, Ram Niwas, husband of the prosecutrix as (PW-4), and Ms.Sheela Devi Advocate as PW-5 and closed the prosecution evidence. 5. In his statement recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C., the accused denied all the allegations and claimed his innocence. He examined Gobind as DW-1 in his defence. 6. The trial Court after hearing the learned counsel for the parties, convicted the accused vide judgment and order dated 16.4.2011 sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment, as narrated above. 7. Feeling dissatisfied with the aforesaid judgment and order, the accused-appellant preferred appeal before learned Sessions Judge, the said learned Court dismissed the appeal vide judgment dated 7.9.2011. 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 revisionist has submitted that there is a delay of 41 hours in lodging the FIR. The occurrence took place in the night of 14.8.2009 but the FIR has been registered only on 16.8.2009. The said time has been used for deliberations and concocting a false story. 11. It is further submitted that admittedly the petitioner is neighbourer of the prosecutrix. There was no electricity connection in the house of prosecutrix and it is admitted case of the parties that electricity current was made available by the petitioner to the house of the prosecutrix. Criminal Revision No. 2294 of 2011 4 Prosecutrix and her husband were paying the charges of that electricity consumption. There was dispute regarding the payment of said charges and on that account false case for entering the house of the prosecutrix and outrage her modesty has been registered to put pressure on the petitioner not to claim the amount of electricity consumption. 12. It is further submitted that according to the case of the prosecutrix the matter was brought to the notice of member panchayat but no member panchayat has come forward and that can belies the case of the prosecution. 13. Lastly, learned counsel for the revisionist has submitted that in case this court is not inclined to accept the prayer of the petitioner in that case the punishment of rigorous imprisonment of two years, awarded by the trial Court, is excessive. The petitioner has already undergone incarceration for a period of two months and three days out of substantive sentence of two years and as such prayer has been made for reduction of the sentence to the period already undergone. 14. The learned State counsel has supported the judgment of both the Courts below. 15. I have given my thoughtful consideration to the rival submissions made by both the sides and have gone through the records of the case. 16. There is concurrent finding of fact recorded by both the Courts below that petitioner is guilty of offence under Section 452 IPC for entering into the house of prosecutrix and for offence under Section 354 IPC for outraging the modesty of the prosecutrix by pressing the breast of the Criminal Revision No. 2294 of 2011 5 prosecutrix during the night time. That being a finding of fact cannot be interferred more so, no ground for the same is made out. It cannot be believed that for mere payment of electricity charges, the accused is implicated in such an offence. The occurrence took place on the night of 14.8.2009 and the FIR has been registered on 16.8.2009. According to the case of the prosecution, the matter was brought to the notice of member panchayat on 15.8.2009. The FIR was lodged on 16.8.2009. The villages think many times before making allegation of such type as by lodging the FIR they put the honour of the lady at stake. Otherwise also, the Court can take judicial notice that on 15.8.2009 generally, the police officials remained busy in celebrating the independence of India. So, the delay in such circumstances is not material. In the villages member panchayats normally do not come forward to depose as they apprehend that by appearing against one of the villagers they may loose the valuable voter. So, non-examination of member panchayat is also in the circumstances is not material. 17. Now reverting to the quantum of sentence, the petitioner is facing trial for the last about two and half years. The revisionist has undergone incarceration for a period of two months and three days out of the substantive sentence of two years imposed by the Courts below. In my view, the ends of justice would be met in case the sentence imposed by the trial Court is reduced to rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year under Section 354 IPC and under Section 452 IPC each instead of two years awarded under both these sections by the trial Court. The sentence of fine, as awarded by the Courts below, under both the offences, stand Criminal Revision No. 2294 of 2011 6 affirmed. However, both the sentences shall run concurrently. 18. With the modification in the sentence, the revision petition stands disposed of accordingly. 19. A copy of this judgment be sent to the trial Court for strict compliance. ( K.C.PURI ) JUDGE November 11, 2011 sv