IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA Criminal Revision No. 48 of 2004 Date of Decision: 13th September, 2010 __________________________________________________________ Kundan Singh ….Petitioner. Versus State of HP ….Respondent. ___________________________________________________________ Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Dev Darshan Sud, J. Whether approved for reporting?1 No. ___________________________________________________________ For the Petitioner: Mr. Vinay Thakur, Advocate For the Respondent: Mr. Ankush Dass Sood, Addl. Advocate General with Ms. Shubh Mahajan, Deputy Advocate General. __________________________________________________________ Dev Darshan Sud, J (oral). The petitioner is aggrieved by his conviction under Section 354 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code for outraging the modesty of Kumari Puja, Kumari Suman, Kumari Hemlata, Kumari Raksha and Kumari Neelam. 2. The case of the prosecution in brief is that on 26.6.2002 and even prior to that, the petitioner used force himself on minors Kumari Puja, Kumari Suman, Kumari Hemlata, Kumari Raksha and Kumari Neelam with the intention to outrage their modesty. 1 Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes 2 3. Father of Kumari Suman had lodged FIR Ext.PW1/A with the police which was investigated and challan was filed in Court. 4. In order to prove its case, the prosecution produced the evidence of victims who testified the occurrence in a graphic manner. PW4 Kumari Puja who was aged about 10 years, testified in a detail as to how the petitioner assaulted her with intention to outrage her modesty. To similar effect is the evidence of PW5 Kumari Suman and PW6 Kumari Hemlata. All these three child witnesses’ competence to testify the occurrence has been ascertained by the Court before their evidence was recorded. These three children have stated how the petitioner used to call them, bite them on their cheeks and feel them all over their bodies. I do not find anything in their cross examination which would suggest that in fact no offence under Section 354 IPC has been committed. This finding has been affirmed by the learned Appellate Court. 5. One of the grounds put forth by the accused is that the case has been filed against him as the parents of the students wanted his transfer to another school and they also asked him for tuition for which he refused. I do not find that this plea has been substantiated anywhere on record. 6. On the submission made by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner that in notice of accusation, there is violation of Section 251 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, as no date and time of occurrence has been put to the accused. This submission cannot be accepted in the facts and circumstance of the present case. It has come in evidence that conduct of the petitioner was a continuing one and in that situation, it was not possible to put the exact details of each date and time of occurrence. 3 7. On the question of punishment, I find that the learned trial Court has sentenced the petitioner to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year and fine of Rs. 500/-. Considering the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case, the sentence of rigorous imprisonment is reduced to three months, but the sentence of fine is sustained. The sentence shall be executed by the learned trial Court. With these observations, petition stands disposed of. Bail bonds furnished by the petitioner stand cancelled. (Dev Darshan Sud) Judge September 13th , 2010(ms)