Crl. Revision No.22 of 2002 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Crl. Revision No.22 of 2002. DECIDED ON : 16.2.2009 Rajender Kumar Petitioner VERSUS State of Haryana Respondent. CORAM HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JORA SINGH Present: Mr. Sandeep Kumar Yadav, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. Vikas Chaudhary, Assistant Advocate General, Haryana. JORA SINGH,J. Rajender Kumar -petitioner has filed this revision against the judgment dated 1.12.2001, whereby appeal filed by him against the judgment/order dated 3.2.2001 in case First Information Report No. 253 dated 12.12.1998, Police Station Patandi passed by Judicial Magistrate,Ist Class,Gurgaon was dismissed. Prosecution story, in brief, is that on 12.12.1998 complainant Dewan Chand presented a written complaint to the Station House officer, Pataudi on the allegation that he sells the Biri, Cigarette and ground nuts on Rehri near Bus Stand, Pataudi Chowk. On 12.12.1998 at about 7 P.M., his daughter Deepti, aged about 12 years was present near the Crl. Revision No.22 of 2002 2 Rehri. He had gone to urinate. In his absence, accused came to purchase ground nuts . He had caught hold of his daughter from her hands and asked her to accompany him. His daughter started weeping. On hearing her noise, Jawahar and his brother Deena Nath, came to the spot. Accused was over powered by them and produced before the police. After completion of investigation, accused was challaned. Charge under Section 354 of the Indian Penal Code was framed against the accused to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. Evidence was led by the prosecution. Ultimately, after hearing learned Public Prosecutor for the State, the defence counsel and also from the perusal of the records/evidence, learned trial Court opined that accused as committed an offence punishable under Section 354 of the Indian Penal Code and was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of three months and to pay a fine of Rs.500/-. In default of payment of fine, he was further directed to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one month. Feeling aggrieved against the judgment and order dated 3.2.2001, appeal was filed but appeal was ultimately dismissed vide judgment dated 1.12.2001. Feeling dissatisfied with the judgment dated 1.12.2001 passed by the Lower Appellate Court, present revision was instituted. Crl. Revision No.22 of 2002 3 Learned counsel for the revisionist argued that occurrence is dated 12.12.1998. Revisionist is the first offender. He was 25 years old. As per story, revisionist had caught hold of the daughter of the complainant from her arm and requested to accompany him. Revisionist did not misbehave with the girl. No attempt was made to outrage the modesty of the minor girl. Revisionist remained in custody for about 1-1/2 months. Revisionist requested that a lenient view be taken against him. Mr. Vikas Chaudhary, Assistant Advocate, General, Haryana. argued that occurrence is dated 12.12.1998. Revisionist was not the previous convict. He hasno objection if a lenient view is taken in the matter of sentence. Deepti appeared as her own witness and on oath stated that accused had caught hold her hand and requested to accompany him. She was alone near the Rehri. PW1 Dewan Chand stated that on 12.12.1998 at 7 P.M. he along with his daughter was present near the Rehri. He had gone to urinate. Accused came to purchase ground nuts . He had caught hold his daughter from her hand and requested to accompany him. His daughter started weeping. He along with Deena Nath and Jawahar came to the spot. On enquiry, his daughter disclosed about the incident by saying that accused had gone towards Rehri. He had touched her face. Accused was apprehended and produced before the police. So, from the statement of Deepti and her father one thing is clear that revisionist had caught hold the minor Crl. Revision No.22 of 2002 4 daughter with bad intention to outrage her modesty. If there was no occurrence, as stated by the girl, then Deena Nath and Jawahar could easily be produced in defence. There was no previous enmity amongst the parties. Deepti was 12 years old. So, she cannot be expected to name the revisionist. After going through the evidence on the file, First Appellate Court rightly opined that accused had touched the face of girl and asked her to accompany him. Intention of the accused was to outrage her modesty. Revisionist is the first offender. Occurrence relates to 12.12.1998. Already revisionist remained in custody for about 1-1/2 months. Ends of justice would be fully met, if lenient view is taken. Revisionist is become a hard criminal, if sent to jail to undergo imprisonment as ordered by the trial Court. Keeping in view the nature of offence and antecedents of the revisionist I take a lenient view and order the revisionist to undergo imprisonment as already undergone. With this modification, qua sentence, revision petition being without any merit and is, hereby, dismissed. 16.2.2009 ( JORA SINGH ) Anoop JUDGE