Crl. Revision No.1149 of 2005 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Crl. Revision No.1149 of 2005 Date of decision : 19.02.2010 Kawal Singh .... Petitioner VERSUS State of Haryana ....Respondent CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA Present: Mr. M.P.S. Mann, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. S.S. Goripuria, DAG, Haryana. KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA, J. Kawal Singh son of Har Narain was named as accused in case FIR No.439 dated 20.12.1996 registered at Police Station Sadar Bahadurgarh under Section 354 IPC. Balwan Singh son of Jai Lal PW-1 appeared before a Head Constable Raj Singh who was present at Bahadurgarh – Jhajjar road along with companion police officials in connection of patrol duty. Balwan Singh stated that he was married with Sharmila about four years ago. On 18.12.1996 at about 7 AM, his wife was present at the Gitwar of the village when accued arrived there and made attempt to outrage her modesty. On noise raised, Om Pati PW-2 and Attar Singh PW-3 were attracted at the spot. The aforesaid FIR was investigated. Report under Section 173 Cr.P.C. was submitted. Crl. Revision No.1149 of 2005 -2- Victim Sharmila appeared as PW-7. Her testimony was corroborated by Om Pati PW-2 and Attar Singh PW-3. Balwan Singh, complainant who had lodged FIR had appeared and supported the prosecution. PW-4 Ram Kumar, PW-5 Constable Ram Chander were formal witnesses. PW-4 Ram Kumar is witness to the recovery memo vide which broken bangles of Sharmila were taken into possession. PW-5 Constable Ram Chander had submitted the special report. ASI Hari Singh deposed regarding registration of formal FIR Ex.PW5/A. Thereafter prosecution closed its evidence and statement of accused was recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. He pleaded false implication. In defence, Ram Kumar, DW-1 has deposed that relations between the parties were strained due to business rivalry. The learned trial court rejected the argument that the case of prosecution should be thrown out as there was a delay of two days in lodging the report. The trial court formed an opinion that in cases of sexual assault, the delay was bound to occur as the parties could not muster courage to report the matter because of involvement of reputation of the families. The trial court also placed reliance on PW- 7 Sharmila and PW-2 Om Pati and further held that the testimony of PW-3 Attar Singh has lent support to these witnesses by proving circumstancial evidence. The Lower Appellate Court had affirmed the findings of the trial court. Mr. M.P.S. Mann, Advocate appearing for the petitioner has stated that petitioner is a victim of business rivalry. This argument was also rejected by Lower Appellate Court on the ground that earlier Crl. Revision No.1149 of 2005 -3- thereto no matter was reported to any authority and no document is available to corroborate this bald assertion. At this stage, Mr. M.P.S. Mann, Advocate appearing for the petitioner has stated that in the present case, occurrence pertains to December 1996. Petitioner has already suffered mental pain and agony of protracted trial for more than 13 years. He has prayed that the same be treated as mitigating circumstance and sentence awarded upon the petitioner be adequately reduced. He has further submitted that petitioner has undergone two months and seven days of his actual sentence and has not committed any offence before or after the occurrence. On due consideration of the arguments raised by Sh. M.P.S. Mann, Advocate for the petitioner, this Court is of view that there is no doubt that the petitioner is in the corridors of the Court for the last 13 years and the same is a mitigating circumstance to reduce the sentence. Accordingly, the sentence is reduced from one year RI to six months RI. The present revision petition stands disposed of. (KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA) 19-02-2010 JUDGE manju