IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Criminal Revision No.611 of 1991 Date of Decision:18.02.2008. Kewal Singh ......Petitioner versus State of Punjab .......Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA. Present: Mr.Harinder Sharma, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr.Mehardeep Singh, AAG, Punjab. *** KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA, J.(Oral) In the present case, occurrence has taken place on 20.03.1989 at about 9.00 P.M. The petitioner was named as an accused in case FIR No.64 dated 21.03.1989 registered at Police Station Baghapurana. The prosecution case is that the prosecutrix Gurdev Kaur wife of Major Singh on the night of 20.03.1989 at about 9.00 P.M. had gone to the nearby fields to answer call of nature. The accused petitioner came there and asked her name. It was further stated by the prosecutrix that she was taken into grips by the accused petitioner. According to the prosecutrix, this was done by the accused petitioner in order to outrage her modesty. She raised hue and cry which resulted into attracting her husband Major Singh to the spot. The accused petitioner grappled with Major Singh and the prosecutrix and thereafter he ran away. It is further stated that in that process, a green turban and a fallow of shoe was left at the spot. On the same night, i.e. on 20.03.1989, a Panchayat was convened and finally on 21.03.1989, the matter was reported to the Criminal Revision No.611 of 1991 --2-- police. The prosecution examined PW-1,Major Singh husband of the prosecutrix, an eye witness, the prosecutrix Gurdev Kaur herself appeared as PW-2. PW-3, Balwinder Singh ASI is the Investigating Officer, PW-4 Mithu Singh, PW-5 Mukund Singh, member of the Panchayat and closed its evidence. The petitioner was examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C. wherein he denied the incriminating evidence put to him. DW-1 Bakhshish Singh, member of the Panchayat was also examined. The petitioner was convicted under Section 354 IPC by the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Moga and was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year. Aggrieved against the same, the petitioner has preferred an appeal and his sentence was reduced to four months by the Court of learned Sessions Judge, Faridkot. Two submissions have been made before me. First submission is that there is a delay of 14 hours in lodging the FIR, therefore, no reliance can be placed on the testimony of the witnesses. Second submission is that a fallow of shoe (Exhibit P-2) which was recovered, proved to be not belonging to the accused petitioner, as the same could not fit him. The accused petitioner was not identified by Gurdev Kaur, Pw-2 in the Court. The two Courts below have appreciated the evidence. The Trial Court held that there is no enmity between the prosecution witnesses and the accused and, therefore, the lady will not come forward and make a statement as her reputation is involved. The Trial Court also relied upon the testimony of PW-5. The Courts below came to the conclusion that the discrepancies pointed out and the delay will be of no consequence as it has come in the light, the Panchayat was convened. The only fact that the shoes recovered from the spot was not of the accused cannot entitle the petitioner to acquittal. It is common knowledge that no lady come forward to level such kind of allegations as her honour is at stake. In the present case, the Criminal Revision No.611 of 1991 --3-- ingredients of the offence are made out against the petitioner. As a Revisional Court, I cannot re-appreciate the findings recorded by both the Courts below. I do not find any illegality or perversity in the judgments of the Courts below. Therefore, I have no hesitation to uphold the conviction of the petitioner. In the present case, occurrence has taken place in the year 1989. It is submitted by the counsel for the petitioner that a period of about 19 years is going to lapse and the petitioner should not be sent behind the bars at this stage. In the present case, the petitioner had undergone only 16 days. Keeping in view kind of allegations and the nature of the offence, I am not inclined to reduce the sentence for the period already undergone. However, taking into account the protracted trial, sentence of the petitioner is reduced from one year to six months. The Revision Petition is disposed off accordingly. February 18, 2008 (KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA) seema JUDGE