Crl. Revision No.3349 of 2009 --1-- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA, CHANDIGARH Crl. Revision No.3349 of 2009 Date of decision.05.02.2010 Mukaram s/o Bhoormal, r/o village Dhana, P.S. Punhana, District Mewat. ....... Petitioner Versus State of Haryana ........ Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SHAM SUNDER Present: Mr. Jamshed Ahmed, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. Sandeep Mann, Sr. DAG, Haryana for the respondent. **** Sham Sunder, J. This revision petition is directed against the judgment dated 07.11.2009, rendered by the Additional Sessions Judge Fast Track Court, Nuh, vide which he dismissed the appeal, against the judgment of conviction dated 02.01.2007, and the order of sentence dated 03.01.2007, rendered by the Court of Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Ferozepur Jhirka, vide which the accused(now revision- Crl. Revision No.3349 of 2009 --2-- petitioner) was convicted for the offences punishable under Sections 323, 506 and 354 of the Indian Penal Code, and sentenced to undergo various terms of imprisonment. 2. The facts, in brief, are that on 27.02.1998, Iliyas son of Juhru made a statement before the Police to the effect that his minor daughter aged about 10-11 years , the prosecutrix (name being not disclosed in view of the authoritative pronouncement of the Apex Court), went to the field for collecting fodder. Mukaram, accused, on seeing her alone, held her hand and took her to the mustard fields. He gave a bite on her cheek and removed her trouser (Salwar). He inserted his finger in the private parts of his daughter. She started weeping, on which he gave a slap to her, and threatened to kill her. Asha, Tahrir and Deenu, who were doing the work in nearby the fields, came there, on hearing the screams of the prosecutrix. Thereafter, the accused fled. On the basis of the statement, made by Iliyas, father of the prosecutrix, a criminal case was registered. During the course of investigation, the statements of the witnesses were recorded. The accused was arrested. After the completion of investigation,the accused was challaned. 3. On his appearance, in the Court, the accused was supplied the copies of documents, relied upon by Crl. Revision No.3349 of 2009 --3-- the prosecution. Charge under Sections 323, 354 and 506 IPC, was framed against the accused, to which he pleaded not guilty, and claimed judicial trial. 4. The prosecution, in support of its case, examined the prosecutrix, (PW-1), Iliyas, complainant, (PW-2) and Tahrir, eye witness, ((PW-3), who, however, did not support the case of the prosecution. Thereafter, the prosecution closed its evidence. 5. The statement of the accused, under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, was recorded. He was put all the incriminating circumstances, appearing against him, in the prosecution evidence. He pleaded false implication. He, however, did not lead any evidence in defence. 6. After hearing the Counsel for the parties,and, on going through the evidence and record of the case, the trial Court, convicted and sentenced the accused, as stated above. 7. Feeling aggrieved, against the judgment of the trial Court, an appeal was preferred, by the appellant, which was dismissed vide judgment dated 07.11.2009, by the Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court, Nuh. 8. Still feeling dis-satisfied, the instant revision-petition, has been filed, by the revision-petitioner. Crl. Revision No.3349 of 2009 --4-- 9. I have heard the Counsel for the parties, and have gone through the record of the case, carefully. 10. The Counsel for the revision-petitioner, did not challenge the conviction. Even otherwise, he could not successfully challenge the same, as the Courts below, on correct reading and due appreciation of the evidence of the prosecutrix,(PW-1) and Ilyas, complainant, (PW2), were right in coming to the conclusion that the same was cogent, convincing, reliable and trust-worthy and sufficient to bring home the guilt to the accused. These witnesses, were thoroughly cross-examined, but nothing of consequence, could be brought out, during the course of their cross-examination, which may go to discredit their evidence. It is settled principle of law, that this Court, in its revisional jurisdiction, cannot re- evaluate and re-appreciate the evidence, produced by the prosecution, until and unless, it comes to the conclusion, that the findings recorded by the Courts below, were in any way perverse or illegal or based on mis-reading of evidence.The Courts below were, thus, right in holding that the accused committed the offences, punishable under Sections 323, 506 and 354 of the Indian Penal Code. In the instant case, the concurrent findings, recorded by the Courts below, that the accused committed the offences, aforesaid, are neither perverse Crl. Revision No.3349 of 2009 --5-- nor illegal. Under these circumstances, no ground, whatsoever, is made out to interfere with the judgment of conviction, recorded by the trial Court, and affirmed by the Appellate Court. The same are liable to be upheld. 11. The Counsel for the revision-petitioner, however, submitted that the revision-petitioner has been facing the protracted criminal proceedings since 27.02.1998 when the case was registered against him, and, as such, the sentence, awarded to him, be reduced suitably. The submission of the Counsel for the revision-petitioner, appears to be correct. The revision-petitioner has been facing the protracted criminal proceedings for the last about 12 years. He must have learnt the lesson. He also suffered a lot of physical pain and mental agony during all these years. The ends of justice will be met, if the substantive sentence, awarded to the petitioner, for the aforesaid offences, is suitably reduced. The submission of the Counsel for the revision-petitioner to this extent, being correct, is accepted. 12. For the reasons recorded above, the revision-petition, is partly accepted. The judgment of conviction, recorded by the Courts below, are upheld. The order of substantive sentence is modified, in the manner, that the revision-petitioner shall undergo RI for a period of five Crl. Revision No.3349 of 2009 --6-- months each, for the offences, punishable under Sections 323, 354 and 506 IPC, instead of RI for six months, and RI for one year and RI for one year, respectively, awarded for these offences, by the trial Court. The sentence of fine and sentence in default of payment of fine, shall remain unaltered. The substantive sentences shall run concurrently. The Chief Judicial Magistrate, shall comply with the judgment, keeping in view the applicability of the provisions of Section 428 Cr.P.C. February 05,2010 (SHAM SUNDER) dinesh JUDGE