Crl. Rev. No. 100 of 2003 [1] IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH * * * * * Crl. Rev. No. 100 of 2003 Date of decision : April 28, 2010 * * * * * Baldev Singh ............Petitioner Versus State of Punjab ...........Respondent * * * * * CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JORA SINGH * * * * * Present: Mr. Mehar Singh Rai, Advocate for the petitioner. Ms. Simsi Dhir Malhotra, AAG, Punjab. * * * * * JORA SINGH, J. The present revision petition was preferred by Baldev Singh to impugn the judgment dated 6.11.2002 rendered by Additional Sessions Judge, Ferozepur. By the said Judgment, appeal to impugn the Judgment dated 27.3.2002 passed by Judicial Magistrate First Class, Fazilka arising out of FIR No.146 dated 9.7.1998 was rejected. Vide the trial Court Judgment, appellant- accused was convicted under Section 354, 452 IPC and was sentenced as under: Crl. Rev. No. 100 of 2003 [2] 1. To undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year and to pay a fine of Rs.2000 under Section 354 IPC. 2. To undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of 1 ½ years and to pay a fine of Rs.2000/- under Section 452 IPC. In default of payment of fine, to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for one month. All sentences were ordered to run concurrently. The prosecution story, in brief, is that prosecutrix was residing with her parents in village Sukhera Bodla. On 8.7.1998, she was sleeping with other family members in the house. Electric light was on. At about 4:00 a.m, Baldev Singh son of Mohinder Singh after entering into the house of the prosecutrix nabbed her while she was sleeping on the cot. After putting his hand on the mouth of the prosecutrix, he started molesting her. After removing his hand from her mouth, she raised raula. On hearing raula, her father Pritam Singh who was sleeping on a different cot at a distance of 3-4 karams got up and asked as to who was there. After that accused started running from the spot. Pritam Singh picked up a kulhari and threw the same towards the accused and the same had struck on his back but in spite of that accused managed to escape from the spot. Near bus stand, police party had met the prosecutrix where her statement Ex.P-4 was recorded by ASI Shinder Singh. After making endorsement, statement was sent to the police station. On the basis of which, formal FIR Ex.P-2 was recorded. After inspecting the Crl. Rev. No. 100 of 2003 [3] scene of crime, rough site plan Ex.P-3 with correct marginal notes was prepared. MLR report of the accused was received on 10.7.1998. At that time accused was lying admitted in Civil Hospital, Jalalabad. Investigating Officer had gone to Civil Hospital, Jalalabad and came to know that injury was caused by the father of the prosecutrix to save his daughter's honour. Accused was arrested in this case. After the completion of investigation, challan was presented in the Court. Accused was charged under Sections 354, 452 IPC, to which accused did not plead guilty and claimed trial. Prosecution examined number of witnesses. Prosecutrix appeared as PW-3 and supported the prosecution story by saying that when she was sleeping in her house then accused came and tried to outrage her modesty. PW-4, Pritam Singh father of the prosecutrix has also supported the version of the prosecutrix. PW-1, ASI, Shinder Singh is the Investigating Officer. Statement of PW-2 Dalip Singh is of formal nature. After the close of prosecution evidence, statement of the accused was recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. Accused denied all the allegations of the prosecution and pleaded to be innocent. Defence version of the accused was that father of the prosecutrix had caused injuries to him and in order to save himself from the legal proceedings, he got false case registered against him. In defence four witnesses were examined. Crl. Rev. No. 100 of 2003 [4] After hearing learned Public Prosecutor for the State, learned defence counsel for the accused and from the perusal of the evidence on the file, petitioner was convicted and sentenced by the trial Court and against judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by the trial Court, appeal filed by the petitioner was rejected by the impugned judgment as stated aforesaid. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, learned State counsel and have gone through the evidence on the file. After arguing the case for some time when learned counsel for the petitioner failed to point out any irregularity or infirmity in the impugned judgment then requested that lenient view be taken because the occurrence is dated 8.7.1998. At that time, petitioner was 28 years old. Petitioner is the first offender and is now married. At the time of occurrence, petitioner as well as the prosecutrix were unmarried. After the present case, prosecutrix got married and is residing at her in-laws house. Out of one and a half years of sentence imposed upon the petitioner, he has already undergone imprisonment of 2 months and 14 days. Petitioner is also ready to compensate the prosecutrix. Learned State counsel argued that no doubt the occurrence is dated 8.7.1998 and petitioner is the first offender but petitioner had tried to outrage the modesty of an unmarried girl of his own village. Offence punishable under Section 354 is serious. Prosecutrix appeared as her own witness and stated that when she was sleeping in her house with other family members then in the morning at about 4:00 a.m, petitioner came and tried to Crl. Rev. No. 100 of 2003 [5] outrage her modesty by placing his hand on his mouth. After removing his hand from her mouth, prosecutrix had raised an alarm then her father woke up. Petitioner started running from the spot then her father picked up a kulhari and had thrown the same towards the petitioner. Kulhari had struck on the back of the petitioner. Pritam Singh, father of the prosecutrix appeared in the Court and supported her version that petitioner had tried to outrage the modesty of his daughter when she was sleeping. On hearing raula, when he woke up then picked up a kulhari and the same was thrown towards the petitioner when he was running from the spot. ASI, Shinder Singh is the Investigating Officer. In defence, petitioner had produced Dr. Narinder Singh and as per the report of the doctor, injuries were noticed on the person of the petitioner. Defence version of the petitioner is that injuries were caused by the father of the prosecutrix, but if injuries were caused by the father of the prosecutrix then petitioner should have lodged report with the police. In case Pritam Singh had the intention to implicate the petitioner to save himself then there was no idea to involve his unmarried daughter. Pritam Singh could easily state that he had some altercation with the petitioner and when the petitioner tried to assault him then he had caused injuries. Evidence on the file was rightly scrutinized and the trial Court rightly came to the conclusion that petitioner had tried to outrage the modesty of the prosecutrix by entering into her house. Conviction of the petitioner under Section 357, 452 IPC is upheld. As discussed earlier, occurrence is dated 8.7.1998 and at Crl. Rev. No. 100 of 2003 [6] that time, petitioner was 28 years old and unmarried. Prosecutrix was also unmarried at that time and now she is married and is residing with her husband at her in-laws house. Petitioner was also married after the present occurrence. He is the first offender. Out of one and a half years of sentence of imprisonment imposed upon the petitioner, he has already undergone one months and 14 days. Petitioner is to become hard criminal, if again sent to jail to undergo imprisonment as ordered by the trial Court. Ends of justice would be fully met, if lenient view is taken. Accordingly, impugned judgment on the point of sentence is modified. In stead of undergoing imprisonment for a period of one and a half years as ordered by the trial Court, petitioner is directed to undergo imprisonment already undergone (2 months and 14 days). Fine is ordered to be maintained. Petitioner is further directed to deposit Rs.20,000/- more within two months payable to the prosecutrix as compensation, failing which revision petition would stand dismissed automatically. For the reasons recorded above, with the modification qua sentence of imprisonment, revision stands disposed of accordingly. April 28, 2010 ( JORA SINGH ) ritu JUDGE