Crl.R.No.788 of 2010 (O&M) 1 IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Crl.R.No.788 of 2010 (O&M) Date of Decision: 30.6.2010 Devender ....Petitioner(s) Versus State of Haryana ....Respondent(s) CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JASWANT SINGH Present: Mr. Sarfaraj Hussain, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Yashpal Malik, DAG, Haryana for the respondent-State. JASWANT SINGH, J Petitioner has filed the instant Criminal Revision under Section 401 Cr.P.C challenging judgment and order dated 30.9.2009 passed by the learned JMIC, Gurgaon whereby the petitioner was convicted for offence under Section 354/506 IPC and was sentenced to undergo RI for two years for the aforesaid offences; as also the order dated 9.2.2010 passed in appeal by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Gurgaon affirming the order of conviction and sentence passed by ld. JMIC, Gurgaon. The prosecution case in brief is that on 19.10.1999 the petitioner-Devender took his neighbour's 13 years old daughter namely Sunita to his house; fondled with her breasts and also made her to masturbate him till he ejaculated. During this course, he also Crl.R.No.788 of 2010 (O&M) 2 `threatened the prosecutrix not to tell about the occurrence to anyone. On the next day, when the matter came to the knowledge of mother of the prosecutrix, the matter was reported to the police upon which FIR No.322/1999 under Section 354 IPC was registered at P.S. Udyog Vihar, Gurgaon. Learned trial Court relying upon the unimpeachable testimony of prosecutrix Sushma Yadav (PW1) and her mother Sunita (PW2) coupled with other attending circumstances convicted and sentenced the petitioner as noticed hereinabove. The appeal filed by the petitioner was dismissed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge. Learned counsel for the petitioner, at the time of arguments, did not assail the findings of conviction. Accordingly, finding of conviction is upheld. Learned counsel for the petitioner addressed the arguments. qua the quantum of sentence only. It was submitted that the petitioner, who is 35 years old, has three children and one aged mother to support and there is no other bread earner in the family. It is further submitted that the petitioner has no past criminal record and he has been facing the agony of trial since 1999. Besides that the petitioner has undergone ten months of incarceration. The aforesaid submissions of learned counsel for the petitioner have not been seriously refuted by the learned State counsel. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the present case, this court is of the opinion that ends of justice would be sufficiently met if by taking a lenient Crl.R.No.788 of 2010 (O&M) 3 view, the quantum of sentence is reduced. Accordingly, the sentence of two years RI is ordered to be reduced to one year RI. The revision petition stands partly allowed in the aforesaid terms. June 30, 2010 ( JASWANT SINGH ) joshi JUDGE