Crl.Rev.No.1035 of 2000 [1] IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Criminal Revision No.1035 of 2000 Date of Decision: 3 - 3 - 2009 Parmod .....Petitioner v. State of Haryana .....Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA *** Present: Mr.N.K.Sanghi, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr.S.S.Mor, Sr. DAG, Haryana. *** KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA, J. (ORAL) By this common judgment, Criminal Revision No.1035 of 2000 filed by Parmod and Criminal Revision No.1135 of 2000 preferred by Arjan Singh shall be decided together. Parmod son of Om Parkash and Arjan Singh son of Lakhan Lal were tried in case FIR No.57 dated 7.3.1995 registered at Police Station Khol under Sections 354, 342, 506 IPC. They were convicted and sentenced by the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Rewari to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year and a fine of Rs.500/- under Section 363 IPC. In default of payment of fine, they were to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for one month. They were further sentenced to Crl.Rev.No.1035 of 2000 [2] undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months and a fine of Rs.500/- for the offence under Section 342 IPC and in default of payment of fine, they were to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one month. They were also sentenced under Section 354 IPC to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year and a fine of Rs.500/- and in default of payment of fine, they were to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one month. They were also convicted and sentenced under Section 506 IPC to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months and to pay a fine of Rs.250/- and in default of payment of fine, they were to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of 15 days. All the substantive sentences were directed to run concurrently. Mr.N.K.Sanghi, learned counsel appearing for petitioner Parmod and Mr.R.A.Sheoran, learned counsel appearing for petitioner Arjan Singh have stated that they will not be in a position to assail the testimony of Manoj Kumari PW-1 as it has duly been corroborated by her cousin Saroj PW-2. Counsel have stated that though in the FIR, it has been stated that Saroj is the real sister but during cross-examination she admitted that she is uncle's daughter of Manoj Kumari. Both the Courts below have taken this discrepancy as the one which will not affect the basic fiber of the case. It has been further submitted that there was 7 days delay in lodging of the FIR. During the course of arguments, this Court observed that concern of the family is always to guard the reputation of the family and the delay has been satisfactorily explained, as efforts were being made to arrive at a compromise. Therefore, this contention is also liable to be rejected. At this stage, counsel for the petitioners submit that petitioner Parmod was aged 20 years and petitioner Arjun Singh was aged 19 years at Crl.Rev.No.1035 of 2000 [3] the time of framing of charge. Counsel submit that taking into consideration the young age of the petitioners who in their youth had made an attempt to outrage the modesty of Manoj Kumari, they be given adequate opportunity to reform themselves. It has been further stated that in the present case, occurrence took place on 1.3.1995 and more than 14 years have elapsed. In the last 14 years, petitioners had committed no offence. Counsel for the petitioners further submit that this Court has consistently held that in such circumstances probation should be granted. Counsel for the petitioners relied upon the following judgments:- 1. Subash Chander v. State of Haryana, 1983(1) R.C.R. (Criminal) 283; 2. Pargat Singh v. State of Punjab, 1985(1) R.C.R. (Criminal) 411; 3. Smt.Ram Dai v. Subha Chand, 1991(1) R.C.R. (Criminal) 320; 4. Mulakh Raj v. State of Haryana, 1991(3) R.C.R. (Criminal) 180; 5. Jagdish v. State of Haryana, 1993(1) Cur. L.J. 73; 6. Bijender v. State of Haryana, 1996(1) R.C.R. (Criminal) 192; and 7. Pappu @ Pooran Babulal Kumhar v. State of M.P., 2002(3) R.C.R. (Criminal) 56. Counsel for the petitioners further submit that petitioners have settled in their lives and are only bread earners of their family and in case they are sent behind the bars, their families may face vagrancy. Taking into consideration the ratio of judgments relied upon by Crl.Rev.No.1035 of 2000 [4] counsel for the petitioners and the fact that petitioners have not committed any offence during the last 14 years, they are ordered to be released on probation under the Probation of Offenders Act. Accordingly, their conviction is maintained. Sentence is set aside. They are ordered to be released on probation on their entering into the bonds in the sum of Rs.20,000/- with one surety each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court. They are released on probation for a period of one year. They shall appear and receive sentence when called upon during the period of one year and in the meantime, they are directed to keep peace and be of good behaviour. Both the petitioners are directed to pay a sum of Rs.10,000/- each as costs to the complainant. The bonds be furnished and costs be deposited within three months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. With the aforesaid modification in the sentence, the present revision petitions are disposed off. ( KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA ) March 3, 2009. JUDGE RC