Crl.Rev.No.1956/2010(O&M) 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Crl.Rev.No.1956/2010(O&M) Date of decision: 28.9.2010. Surender Singh ....................Petitioner v. State of Haryana. .....................Respondents Coram: Hon'ble Mr.Justice Jaswant Singh Present: Mr.JP Sharma,Advocate for the petitioner. Jaswant Singh.J. Present revision petition under Section 401 Cr. P.C is directed against judgment dated 7.7.2010 passed by learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Narnaul whereby the appeal filed by the petitioner was dismissed and the judgment and order dated 25.5.2009 passed by learned Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Narnaul convicting the petitioner under Section 457 IPC and sentencing him to undergo RI for two years and to pay a fine of Rs.500/- and in default thereof to undergo further RI for one month was upheld. Briefly noticed the facts of the present case are that FIR No.90 dated 11.6.2010 under Section 457 IPC was registered at P.S Sadar Narnaul on the statement of complainant Kusum Lata that on the intervening night of 9/10.6.2006, complainant was sleeping in her house. At about 2.00 a.m, petitioner Surender Singh entered in her Crl.Rev.No.1956/2010(O&M) 2 house by scaling the wall, abused her and tried to outrage her modesty. Complainant raised alarm whereafter the petitioner fled away. After completion of investigation, report under Section 173 Cr.P.C was submitted in the court. Learned trial Court on the basis of oral as well as documentary evidence found that the offence under Section 457 IPC was made out against the petitioner and accordingly he was convicted and sentenced as aforesaid. The appeal filed by him was dismissed by learned Additional Sessions Judge vide order dated 7.7.2010. Hence the present revision petition. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. At the time of arguments, learned counsel for the petitioner has only stated that the petitioner is first time offender and as such he be released on parole. After hearing learned counsel for the petitioner and perusing the judgment, I do not find any merit in the submission of the learned counsel. Complainant while appearing in the witness box as PW4 has fully supported the prosecution version and identified the accused-petitioner. Satyanarain, a neighbor of Kusum Lata while appearing as PW2 corroborated the version given by the complainant. On the other hand, the respondent only pleaded innocence but led no evidence in his defence. As regards the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner that he be released on probation as he is first time offender, the same is falsified by the observation of the learned Addl. CJM in Crl.Rev.No.1956/2010(O&M) 3 his order dated 25.9.2009. While awarding the sentence, ld. ACJM has found that as per conviction slip attached with the challan, a number of cases are pending against the petitioner and as such keeping in view the character and antecedent, the request for releasing the petitioner on probation was declined. In view of the above, I find no illegality or perversity in the orders passed by the courts below, which may warrant interference by this Court in exercise of its powers under Section 401 Cr.PC. Dismissed. 28.9.2010 (Jaswant Singh) joshi Judge