Crl. Rev. No.1325 of 2001 [1] IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Criminal Revision No.1325 of 2001 Date of Decision: 26 - 2 - 2009 Satish Kumar .....Petitioner v. State of Haryana .....Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA *** Present: Mr.Vinod S. Bhardwaj, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr.S.S.Mor, Sr. DAG, Haryana. *** KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA, J. (ORAL) The present revision petition has been filed by Satish Kumar aggrieved against the judgment passed by the Court of Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Bhiwani whereby he was convicted and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three years and a fine of Rs.500/- and in default of payment of fine to undergo further imprisonment for one month for commission of offence under Section 377 IPC. Aggrieved against the order of Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Bhiwani petitioner filed an appeal which was heard and disposed off by the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Bhiwani. Additional Sessions Judge, Bhiwani maintained the conviction but has reduced the sentence from three years to one year. Crl. Rev. No.1325 of 2001 [2] The petitioner was facing trial in case FIR No.64 dated 2.3.1996 registered at Police Station Bawanikhera under Section 377 IPC. The facts of the prosecution case gathered from the impugned judgments are that on 2.3.1996 ASI Balbir Singh, Incharge, Police Post Mundhal along with police officials was present at Bus Stand Mundhal. One Wazir son of Fakkar, resident of Badesra presented himself and got recorded his statement. He had stated in the complaint that he was working as Seerin with one Dhoop Singh. On that day, at 3.00 P.M. when he went to his house, he was told by his wife that at about 1/1.30 P.M. accused had taken Vijender for purchasing balloons. The wife of the complainant and her sister saw that Vijender was weeping in front of house of Satish. On enquiry, Vijender told that Satish had committed a wrong act with him. The wife of the complainant and her sister had made Vijender to wear pyjama and blood was coming out of his anus. The child was taken to hospital for medical examination. Dr. P.K.Charaya PW-1 medically examined Vijender. PW-2 Dr.Vijay Pal medico legally examined accused Satish to state that he was medically fit to commit sexual intercourse. Baljit Singh PW-3 had recorded the formal FIR. Constable Vijender Singh had tendered his affidavit. PW-5 was victim Vijender and complainant Wazir appeared as PW-6. Mother of the victim Kela appeared as PW-7 along with her sister Rajo as PW-8. PW- 9 Dr.N.K.Goyal, Assistant Director, Forensic Science Laboratory, Madhuban proved his report regarding the pyjama. Balbir Singh PW-10 was the Investigating Officer and Constable Dalbir Kumar appeared as PW- 11. A perusal of the judgment reveal that an argument was taken Crl. Rev. No.1325 of 2001 [3] that prosecution version suffer from many discrepancies and evidence of witnesses is not reliable. Mr.Vinod S. Bhardwaj, counsel appearing for the petitioner has stated that there is a delay in reporting the matter to the police. There is previous enmity between the parties, therefore, the petitioner has been falsely implicated. Counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on Chitranjan Dass. v. State of U.P., AIR 1974 SC 2352 and Om Parkash v. State of Haryana, 1994(2) RCR (Criminal) 78 to contend that petitioner has already undergone about six months of sentence, therefore, the sentence be reduced to the one already undergone. This Court cannot lose sight of the fact that the society to which victim and his parents belong, it is rare that witnesses come forward in case of such a crime to report the matter. The first and fore-most concern of the witnesses and the police remain to save the child from enormity and shame. Child had been medico legally examined. Blood was coming out of his anus. Parents of the victim child had appeared. Therefore, argument of delay, enmity and false implication on that score even though available, cannot be considered while forming a wholesome opinion. Two Courts below have appreciated the evidence and found the petitioner to be guilty. Therefore, no infirmity can be found in the judgments of Courts below and no interference is warranted while exercising revisional jurisdiction. In the presence case, occurrence had taken place on 2.3.1996. Petitioner has already suffered a protracted trial of 19 years. This Court cannot become oblivious of the fact that at the time of occurrence petitioner was a young man of 21 years. Therefore, protracted trial and age of the petitioner can be taken into consideration as mitigating circumstance. Crl. Rev. No.1325 of 2001 [4] Taking into consideration the ratio of judgments in Chitranjan Dass's case (supra) and Om Parkash's case (supra) relied upon by counsel for the petitioner and the fact that the petitioner had already remained in custody for about six months, the sentence of one year is reduced to the period already undergone. With the aforesaid modification in the quantum of sentence, the present revision petition is disposed off. ( KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA ) February 26, 2009. JUDGE RC