Criminal Revision No.588 of 1997 (O&M) [1] IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH ... Criminal Revision No.588 of 1997(O&M) Decided on : February 15, 2010 Jaimal Singh ... Petitioner VERSUS State of U.T.Chandigarh ... Respondent CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE A.N.JINDAL Present: Mr.Puneet Sharma, Advocate – amicus curiae for the petitioner Mr.Gautam Kaile, Advocate for Mr.Rajiv Sharma, Advocate for UT, Chandigarh A.N.JINDAL, J.- This revision petition, filed by Jaimal Singh – accused/petitioner (herein referred as `the accused') is directed against the judgment dated 2.7.1997 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Chandigarh, dismissing his appeal against the judgment dated 11.5.1995 passed by Chief Judicial Magistrate, Chandigarh, convicting and sentencing him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year and to pay a fine of Rs.1000/- under Section 377 read with Section 511 of the Indian Penal Code, and to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for three months for the offences under Sections 323 and 342 IPC, each. Initially, two accused, namely: Jaimal Singh and Rajesh Kumar were convicted by the Trial Court for the aforesaid offences. The appeal Criminal Revision No.588 of 1997 (O&M) [2] preferred by both the accused persons was dismissed, however, with the modification in the sentence of Rajesh Kumar that he was extended the benefit of probation under the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958. Now, Jaimal Singh has preferred the instant appeal. In nutshell, the facts are that on 12.1.1992, the accused along with one Rajesh Kumar met the victim, a male child aged 12 years (name not being disclosed – herein referred as `the victim') in the Gurudwara and both of them took him to House No.2079, Sector-21D, Chandigarh and allegedly committed carnal intercourse with him there. They all took liquor, which they finished at 6.30 PM. Then the victim met his father at 8.00 PM and disclosed to him about the incident, upon which the FIR was lodged at Police Station Central, Chandigarh under Sections 377/511/323/342 IPC. The case was investigated and both the accused were tried. During trial, in view of the evidence of Dr.R.S.Sachdeva (PW1), revealing that there was nothing to suggest that sodomy was performed on the victim, the accused were found to have committed offence under Sections 323/342 and Section 377 read with Section 511 IPC. As such, the Trial Court convicted them accordingly. The appeal of the accused – petitioner was dismissed, as referred to above. At the very outset, counsel for the accused – petitioner has not assailed the conviction. However, he has thrown the petitioner at the mercy of the Court and harped for extending some leniency in the quantum of sentence. Even after having examined the evidence on record, sufficient convincing material in order to establish the charges under Section 377 read Criminal Revision No.588 of 1997 (O&M) [3] with Section 511 as also Sections 323 and 342 IPC. On quantum of sentence, it is noticed that the main accused Rajesh Kumar was released on probation by the Appellate Court. At the same time, both accused were acquitted of the main offence under Section 377 IPC and it was only an attempt to commit sodomy. The petitioner was 38 years old at the time of the alleged crime, which was committed way back in the year 1992. As such, now he must be 56 years old. It is also revealed that he was a married man, having four children and might have become grand-father or great grand-father by now. The petitioner being first offender and having undergone about nine days of the imprisonment and also in view of his old age, it would not be in the fitness of things to send him to imprison again. In the aforesaid peculiar circumstances of the case, the present petition is dismissed with the modification in the sentence, which is reduced to that already undergone, subject to deposit of Rs.20,000/- as fine within three months from today, in default of which, the petition be treated as having been dismissed without any modification. Amicus curiae may claim remuneration as per rules from the Competent Authority. February 15, 2010 ( A.N.JINDAL ) `gian' JUDGE