Crl. Revision No. 100 of 2006 -1- In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh Crl. Revision No. 100 of 2006 (O&M) Date of Decision: March 18, 2011 Sheo Ram ---Petitioner versus State of Haryana ---Respondent Coram: HONBLE MR. JUSTICE GURDEV SINGH *** Present: Mr.R.A.Sheoran, Advocate, for the petitioner Mr.Shekhar Mudgal, Asstt. Advocate General, Haryana *** GURDEV SINGH, J. The petitioner-accused, Sheo Ram, was convicted for the offences under Sections 354 and 451 IPC by Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Loharu, vide judgment dated 3.4.2002 and was sentence as under:- Sr. No. Under Section Sentence imposed Fine 1 451 IPC To undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year 500/- In default of payment of fine to further undergo imprisonment for a period of one month 2 354 IPC To undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year 500/- In default of payment of fine to further undergo imprisonment for a period of one month Crl. Revision No. 100 of 2006 -2- Against that conviction and sentence, he preferred an appeal, but the same was dismissed by Additional Sessions Judge (Ad hoc) Bhiwani, vide judgment dated 30.11.2005. Now, he has filed the present revision against that conviction and sentence. The prosecution story, in brief, is that the prosecutrix, PW-1( the name is not being disclosed in this judgment) used to reside with her in-laws in village Pahari, after constructing a house outside the abadi of the village. On 15.3.1997, at about 11-00 p.m., she had gone to the bed after talking to her mother-in-law, Shanti Devi, PW-4. After some time, the accused criminally tress passed into their house after opening the gate and came inside the chappar where she was lying on the cot. After holding her right hand, he tried to push her on the cot and also tried to touch the private parts of her body. She raised an alarm, which attracted Shanti, PW-4 and her father-in-law the Tek Chand, PW-2, to the spot. The husband of the prosecutrix had gone out side and in order to resolve the dispute, the help of the brotherhood in the village was taken but the same was not settled. Thereafter, on 19.3.1997, she was proceeding to the police station to lodge a report when Mehar Singh, ASI, met her on the way. She made her statement, EX. PA, before that ASI, who after recording his police proceedings, sent the same to the police station and on the basis thereof, formal FIR, Ex. PC, was recorded by Shri Bhagwan Singh ASI, PW-3. Mehar Singh ASI, went to the place of occurrence and after inspecting the same, prepared the rough site plan. He recorded the statements of the witnesses. In the course of investigation, the accused was arrested and challan was put in before the SDJM, who found sufficient grounds for presuming that the accused committed offences punishable under Section 354 and 451 IPC. He was charged accordingly, to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. To prove the guilt of the accused, prosecution examined Geeta, PW-1, Tek Crl. Revision No. 100 of 2006 -3- Chand, PW-2. Shri Bhagwan ASI, PW-3, Santi, PW-4 and Bhim Singh, Constable PW-5. After the prosecution closed its evidence, the accused was examined and his statement was recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. The incriminating circumstances appearing against him in the prosecution evidence were put to him in order to enable him to explain the same. He denied all those circumstances and pleaded his innocence. He stated that false case has been made against him on account of party faction in the village. He was called upon to enter on his defence. He examined Dhani Ram, DW-1, in his defence evidence. I have heard learned counsel for both the sides. Having failed to assail the conviction of the accused, it has been submitted by his counsel that the accused is standing his trial from the last more than 13 years and has already undergone imprisonment for a period of about 05 months. Both the offences, for which he was convicted, are punishable with imprisonment for a period up to two years. It is not the case of the prosecution that he is a previous convict. He prayed that the benefit of probation be granted to the accused. The State counsel has placed on record the custody certificate of the accused. As per that certificate, he has already undergone sentence of imprisonment for a period of 04 months and 21 days, against the sentence of one year imposed upon him. The prosecution neither alleged nor proved any previous conviction against him. Keeping in view the fact that the accused is standing his protracted trial for so many years and has already undergone about 05 months of imprisonment, I think it proper and expedient to release him on probation in stead of sentencing him at once to any punishment. He is ordered to be released on probation on his executing personal bond in the sum of ` 10,000/- with a surety in the like amount for the period of two years, to Crl. Revision No. 100 of 2006 -4- appear and receive the sentence as and when called upon to do so during that period and to keep peace and be of good behaviour in the meanwhile. He is directed to pay ` 5,000/- as compensation to the prosecutrix. The fine, if already deposited, shall be adjusted towards that compensation. The bonds are to be furnished and the compensation be paid before the trial Court within a period of three months of the passing of this order, failing which this revision shall be deemed to have been dismissed. Records of the trial court be returned forthwith. Petition stands disposed of accordingly. (GURDEV SINGH) JUDGE March 18, 2011 PARAMJIT