Criminal Revision No. 286 of 1998 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Criminal Revision No.286 of 1998 Date of decision: May 2, 2008 Surinder Singh alias Babli … Petitioner Versus State of Haryana … Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA Present: Mr. Ravinder Mallik, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Ajay Ganghas, AAG Haryana for the State. KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA, J. (ORAL) The petitioner in this case was tried in case FIR No.133 dated 09.10.1992 registered at Police Station Bilaspur under Section 354 IPC. He was convicted by the Court of Judicial Magistrate (1st Class), Jagadhri vide his judgment and order dated 17th October, 1995 to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months and to pay a fine of Rs.1000/-. In default of payment of fine, to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three months. He has been held to be guilty for offences under Section 354 IPC. Aggrieved against the judgment of trial Court, petitioner had filed an appeal. The same was dismissed by the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Jagadhri. The allegations against the appellant is that on 8th October, 1992, Smt.Swaran Devi alias Poli wife of Shri Ram Saran, had gone to her fields for carrying fodder for her cattle. There the accused emerged and attempted to shut her mouth and tried to untie the string of her salwar. The learned counsel, in its grounds of revision has extensively reproduced the statement of various witnesses to contend that in the Court, Swaran Devi when appeared as PW-1 has only stated that accused has shut her month, led his hand on her prestige and on noise, his other Criminal Revision No. 286 of 1998 2 relations, i.e., sister-in-law, husband’s younger brother’s wife Jaipal were attracted. I am afraid, discrepancies and contradictions pointed out by the counsel for the petitioner cannot be appreciated while exercising revisional jurisdiction. Two courts below have placed implicit reliance on the testimony of PW-1 Swaran Devi, PW-2 Ram Saran (husband of Swaran Devi), Nirmla Devi PW-3 and Jai Pal PW-4, who were eye witnesses. In a revisional jurisdiction I cannot re-appreciate and re-evaluate the evidence. Contradictions and discrepancies which have been pointed out cannot be taken into consideration as in revisional jurisdiction counsel has to point out some patent illegality, irregularity or perversity in appreciation of evidence, which the counsel for the petitioner is unable to state. At this stage, Mr.Ravinder Mallik appearing for the petitioner has stated that he will not be able to assail the conviction but he may be allowed to make alternate prayer for reducing the sentence of the petitioner to already undergone. It has been contended that in the present case, occurrence pertains to 9th October, 1992. Petitioner has already suffered a protracted trial of 16 years and out of the actual sentence of six months, petitioner has undergone one month and 24 days. Taking into consideration protracted trial, the fact that petitioner has already undergone 1 month and 24 days out of actual sentence of six months, I am of the considered view that ends of justice will be fully met in case sentence of the petitioner is reduced to already undergone. However, sentence of fine is enhanced to Rs.10,000/- and the same shall be paid to the victim PW-1 Swaran Devi by the learned trial Court. With these observations, the present revision petition is disposed off. [KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA] JUDGE May 2, 2008 rps