Criminal Revision No.162 of 2004 (O&M) [1] IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH ... Criminal Revision No.162 of 2004(O&M) Decided on : October 29, 2010 Lakhvinder Singh and another ... Petitioners VERSUS Amarjit Kaur and another ... Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE A.N.JINDAL Present: Mr.Sandeep Arora, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr.Amit Chaudhary, Assistant Advocate General, Punjab. None for the complainant-respondent. A.N.JINDAL, J.- Accused – petitioners Lakhvinder Singh and Rupinder Singh (herein referred as `accused') through the instant petition have challenged the judgment dated 9.1.2004 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Ludhiana, dismissing their appeal against the judgment dated 20.2.2002 passed by Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Ludhiana, convicting and sentencing both the petitioners as under:- U/s 354 IPC To undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year, each; U/s 323 IPC To undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year and to pay fine of Rs.1000/- each. However, the accused Sukhdev Singh as convicted by the Trial Court was Criminal Revision No.162 of 2004 (O&M) [2] acquitted by the first Appellate Court. Briefly stated, the case of the complainant – respondent NO.1 Amarjit Kaur, as put forth in her complaint before the Ilaqa Magistrate, is that on 5.11.1991 at about 12.40 PM, when she was washing the clothes on the tube-well situated adjoining her house, the accused accompanied by two unknown persons came there and started splashing water towards her and passed filthy remarks. On a protest raised by the complainant, the accused dragged her towards the bushes grown nearby in order to outrage her modesty. However, on raising hue and cry, they ran away towards their house, situated at about 100/150 yards and returned armed with gandasis, followed by their father Sukhdev Singh. Sukhdev Singh raised lalkara, whereas, both the accused attacked the complainant with their weapons causing injuries on her head. However, her parents came at her rescue and they shifted her to CMC Hospital Ludhiana, where she was medico legally examined. She remained admitted there for about 15 days and injuries on her person were declared dangerous to life. Since the police did not take cognizance of the case, therefore, she had to file the instant complaint under Section 307, 354 and 506/34 IPC. After recording the preliminary evidence, the accused were summoned to face trial for the aforesaid sections. To substantiate her version, the complainant examined herself as PW1; Sukhwinder Singh (PW2); Darshan Singh record keeper, CMC & Hospital, Ludhiana (PW3); Constable Balwinder Kumar (PW3/1); Dr.Lajpat Rai, Neuro Surgeon (PW3/2) and then her evidence was closed by the Court. In his statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C, the accused denied Criminal Revision No.162 of 2004 (O&M) [3] all the incriminating circumstances appearing against them and pleaded their false implication. They took the plea that neither any tube-well was situated at the alleged place of occurrence, nor there were any bushes. They further stated that they had purchased their plot and raised construction thereon. The complainant had occupied the plot of her uncle illegally and in order to maintain the possession, she manipulated the version. In defence, they examined Tejinderpal (DW1) and Hardip Singh (DW2). However, the trial resulted into conviction of the accused under Section 354/323 IPC. At the very outset, the learned counsel for the petitioners without assailing the findings of guilt, has completely thrown them to the mercy of the Court and has pleaded for some leniency on the quantum of sentence. Even otherwise, records transpire that the courts below have returned a finding of fact regarding guilt of the petitioners on proper appreciation of the evidence. The impugned judgment also sans any perversity, irregularity or illegality warranting interference by this Court. Thus, the conviction recorded by both the courts below is maintained. Now, coming to the quantum of sentence, the incident in question took place in the year 1991, when the petitioners were just in their teenage; they have also undergone more than two months of the substantive sentence and also have suffered a lot of agony due to protracted proceedings in the last about twenty years. That apart, no bad antecedents pertaining to them have been brought on record, so as to dub them as habitual offenders. The aforesaid facts and circumstances could be treated as mitigating for reduction of sentence. As such, ends of justice would be Criminal Revision No.162 of 2004 (O&M) [4] met, if the sentence of rigorous imprisonment is reduced to that already undergone by them. Ordered accordingly. Copy of the judgment be sent to the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ludhiana for compliance. ( A.N.JINDAL ) JUDGE October 29, 2010 `gian'