In the High Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh Crl. Revision No. 953 of 2002 Date of decision: November 25, 2008 Gurmit Singh ... Petitioner versus State of Punjab ... Respondent Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice A.N. Jindal Present: Mr. Vinod Arya, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. C.S. Brar, DAG, Punjab, for the respondent. A.N. Jindal, J Accused-petitioner Gurmit Singh (herein referred as 'the petitioner) was convicted and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year and fine of Rs.200/- under Section 354 IPC and rigorous imprisonment for one year and fine of Rs.300/- under Section 452 IPC. The factual matrix of the case is that Balbir Singh father of he petitioner was a mason. The complainant was illiterate. They are four sisters and Harjit Kaur complainant was third from above. Her elder two sisters were married. Their mother had already expired. On 30.5.1999, at about 2.00 p.m. Harjit Kaur was alone in the house. When she had gone to fodder room to fetch fodder, the petitioner, their neighbourer, came from behind, caught hold of her by her arm and also caught hold of her breasts with the second hand. On raising hue and cry, Mohinder Kaur, her aunt, was attracted to the spot. At this, the petitioner escaped. Harjit Kaur disclosed the entire story to Mohinder Kaur. On the next day, the matter was taken up with the Panchayat, however, the same could not be settled. On 3.6.1999, her father made a statement on the basis of which case was registered and investigated. Completion of the investigation was followed by a report under Section 173 Cr.P.C. Charges under Sections 354/452 IPC were framed against the petitioner to which he pleaded not guilty and opted to contest. In order to substantiate the charges, the prosecution examined Crl. Revision No. 953 of 2002 -2- *** Inderjit Singh (PW1), Balbir Singh (PW2), Harjit Kaur (PW3), Mohinder Kaur (PW4) and Gurbax Singh (PW5). When examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C. the petitioner denied all the allegations and pleaded his false implication. The trial ended in conviction. His appeal also failed. Arguments heard. Record perused. At the very outset, learned counsel for the petitioner without assailing the judgment of conviction has prayed for some leniency on the quantum of sentence. The petitioner was a young man of the age of 20. He has already undergone 4 months of the substantive sentence. The occurrence took place way back in the year 1999. The petitioner must have been settled in his life. No bad antecedents have been brought on record in order to dub him as habitual offender. Though the trial court has already refused him benefit of probation, yet in the aforesaid circumstances of the case some lenient view could be taken. Resultantly, this petition is dismissed with the modification in the sentence to that of already undergone by him. However, the fine is enhanced to Rs.10,500/-. Copy of the judgment be sent to the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Patiala for compliance. November 25, 2008 (A.N. Jindal) deepak Judge