IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Crl. Revision No. 551 of 2009 Date of decision: April 15, 2009 Hamir Singh ….. Petitioner Versus State of Punjab ….. Respondent Present: Mr. Parminder Singh-I, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Sudhir Nehra, Addl. A.G., Punjab. *** S.S. SARON, J. This revision petition has been filed against the judgment and order dated 6.2.2009 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sangrur whereby, the appeal of the petitioner against the judgment and order dated 30.7.2008 passed by the learned Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Dhuri has been dismissed, however, the sentence of imprisonment for the offences under Sections 451 and 354 Indian Penal Code (“IPC” – for short) has been reduced from one year to six months. The FIR in the case was recorded on the basis of statement made by Nachattar Kaur complainant to ASI Joginder Singh at the Bus-Stand, Kakarwal on 12.10.2005 at 8.00 p.m. It was stated by Nachattar Kaur – complainant that she was resident of village Punnawal. On 9.10.2005, she along with her daughter-in-law Sarabjit Kaur were sleeping in the open courtyard of their house on separate cots. At about 11.00 p.m. Hamir Singh (petitioner) who is their neighbour came near the cot of the complainant and with an intention to outrage her modesty committed assault. He threatened the complainant not to raise any noise. In the meantime, Sarabjit Kaur Crl. Revision No. 551 of 2009 [2] daughter-in-law of the complainant switched on light and the petitioner was recognized. Bhola Singh husband of the complainant came there and then the petitioner after pushing the complainant fled away from there. Information regarding this was given to the Panchayat, but no compromise could be effected. On the basis of the statement made by Nachattar Kaur complainant, case for the commission of offences under Sections 451 and 354 Indian Penal Code (“IPC” – for short) was registered. The case was investigated and thereafter, charge report (challan) was filed by the Police. The prosecution in order to prove its case examined Nachattar Kaur complainant as PW1, Sarabjit Kaur daughter-in-law of the complainant as PW2 and ASI Joginder Singh as PW3. The petitioner in his statement under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (“CrPC” – for short) pleaded innocence and false implication. It was stated by the petitioner that he had been implicated due to party faction in the Panchayat elections. The petitioner in his defence examined Mohinder Singh, Sarpanch as DW1 and Gurmail Singh as DW2. The learned trial Court considered the question whether on 9.10.2005 at about 11.00 p.m., the petitioner committed house trespass by entering the house of Nachattar Kaur complainant and used criminal force with an intention to outrage her modesty. After considering the evidence and material on record, the petitioner was held guilty for the offences under Sections 451 and 354 IPC. He was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year each for both the offences. Besides, to pay a fine of Rs.300/- and Rs.200/- for both the offences and in default of payment of fine, to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for fifteen days. Both the sentences of imprisonment were, however, ordered to run concurrently. The petitioner aggrieved by the order of the Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Dhuri preferred an appeal and the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sangrur vide his impugned order has reduced the sentence of imprisonment to six months for the offences under Sections 451 and 354 IPC. The sentence of fine awarded by the trial Court was maintained. Crl. Revision No. 551 of 2009 [3] Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner was a young boy of 18 years at the time of commission of the offence and it is not a case where he is a gone case. Besides, it is submitted that he is a first offender and keeping in view the nature of allegations, the petitioner is entitled to the benefit of probation. It is submitted that the complainant whom the petitioner is alleged to have assaulted, was aged about 60 years. In response, learned counsel for the State has submitted that keeping in view the nature of allegations and the facts and circumstances of the case which have been held to be duly proved by both the Courts below, the petitioner is not entitled to the benefit of probation. I have given my thoughtful consideration to the contentions of the learned counsel for the parties and also perused the records of the case. This Court in Parkash v. State of Haryana, 1986(1) Recent Criminal Reports 94 considered the case where the accused in the said case had committed assault on the prosecutrix therein while she was cutting grass in her fields. The accused therein came from behind the prosecutrix and took her in his grip and outraged her modesty. The prosecutrix in the said case suffered bruises on her breasts, arms, hands and feet. On raising alarm, a few women came there and on seeing them, the accused let alone the prosecutrix. This Court considered the case and it was observed that the accused therein was a co-villager of the prosecutrix and was a young man of 20 years of age at the time of commission of the offence. It was observed that though his offence was definitely against the accepted morals of our society yet he was not a gone case never to be reclaimed back by the civilized society. In the circumstances, he was ordered to be released on probation under Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act. In Bijender v. State of Haryana, 1996(1) Recent Criminal Reports 192, this Court considered the case of the accused who had been convicted for the offence under Crl. Revision No. 551 of 2009 [4] Section 354 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for two years, besides, to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/-. The accused in the said case at the time of commission of the offence was below 21 years of age. He had been facing trial for a period of five and a half years and was not a previous convict. In the circumstances, he was granted the benefit of probation. In the present case, the petitioner at the time of the incident of entering the house of the complainant was 18 years of age. The incident is of 9.10.2005 and he has faced trial and prosecution for three years now. The complainant is stated to be 60 years of age. Both the complainant and the petitioner belong to the same village. The matter was reported by the complainant to the Panchayat and efforts were made to settle the matter which, however, did not materialize. The FIR in the case was registered on 12.10.2005 i.e. three days after the incident on 9.10.2005. Therefore, there must have been efforts and deliberations to compromise the matter in the village. As observed in Parkash’s case (supra), the offence which the petitioner has committed is definitely against the accepted morals of our society. However, it cannot be said that he is a gone case never to be reclaimed back by the civilized society. The petitioner is a first offender. Therefore, the ends of justice, in the facts and circumstances, would be met in case the petitioner is given the benefit of probation; besides, ordering payment of Rs.5,000/- as compensation to the complainant. The sentence of fine which has been imposed and deposited in the facts and circumstances would be treated as costs of the proceedings. Accordingly, while maintaining the conviction of the petitioner for the offences under Sections 451 and 354 IPC, it is ordered that he be released on probation under Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act on his executing a bond in the sum of Rs.20,000/- with one surety of the like amount for a period of two years binding himself to appear and receive the sentence when called upon, to do so, during the said period and in the meantime, to keep peace and be of good behaviour. The Crl. Revision No. 551 of 2009 [5] petitioner shall pay a sum of Rs.5,000/- as compensation to the complainant Nachattar Kaur and the amount of fine shall be treated as costs of proceedings. The petitioner on his executing the bond shall be released on probation. The probation bonds shall be furnishing and the costs of proceedings shall be deposited within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a certified copy of the judgment. With the above modification, the Crl. Revision petition stands disposed of. (S.S. SARON) JUDGE April 15, 2009 amit