Criminal Revision No. 676 of 2008 1 IN THE HIGHCOURT OF PUNJB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Criminal Revision No.676 of 2008 Date of Decision: May 29, 2008 Jai Ram ......Petitioner Vs. State of Punjab .....Respondent CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH BINDAL Present: Ms. Reena Bains, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr.J.S.Bhullar, AAG, Punjab. *** RAJESH BINDAL J. The petitioner is before this Court in present revision petition challenging the order dated 19.3.2008 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court), Bathinda, whereby, in appeal the conviction of the petitioner by the learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Talwandi Sabo, vide judgment dated November 25, 2006, was upheld. The petitioner is an accused in FIR No. 48 dated June 09, 2002 under Sections 452/323 IPC registered at Police Station Maur. The petitioner was originally booked for offences committed under Sections 376, 511, 452 and 323 IPC but after investigation by Deputy Superintendent of Police, offences under Sections 376/511 IPC were not made out. Criminal Revision No. 676 of 2008 2 Briefly, the facts are that Hukma Devi wife of Gandhi Ram s/o Buta Ram was residing in village Maur Khurd for the last 15 years. Her husband is a labourer. On the date of occurrence i.e.9.6.2002 at about 8.30 a.m., her husband had gone out to answer the call of nature. Her parents had also come on that day to express condolence on account of the death of some relative in the neighbourhood. Hukma Devi along with her minor children, was alone at home when the petitioner, who resided in the vicinity, trespassed into her house and started dragging her in one of the room. In spite of her resistance, he torn off her clothes. Even the string of her Salwar gave away. On her raising alarm, even her minor children started crying. Hearing the alarm, her parents who had gone in the neighbourhood, immediately came at the spot and seeing them the petitioner fled away from there. It was only because of the intervention of her parents that she could be saved from the evil designs of the petitioner. She suffered injuries on her chest, arms and abdomen. She was admitted in Civil Hospital, Maur. After considering the entire material on record, the learned Magistrate convicted the petitioner for offences committed under Sections 354, 451 and 323 IPC and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months each for the commission of offence under Sections 354 and 451 IPC and also six months rigorous imprisonment for the commission of offence under Section 323 IPC and also to pay a fine of Rs. 300/-. In default of payment of fine, he was also sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of 30 days. The conviction and sentence were maintained by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Bathinda. Criminal Revision No. 676 of 2008 3 Though initially counsel for the petitioner addressed arguments on merits, however, finding it difficult to convince the Court to interfere in the conviction and sentence of the petitioner in revisional jurisdiction, she submitted that the quantum of sentence awarded to the petitioner may be reduced to the period already undergone as the petitioner is in custody since March 19, 2008. Though the petitioner has been convicted and sentenced to undergo imprisonment but there was no independent witness to the alleged crime in spite of the fact that the petitioner as well as the victim were living in a thickly populated area where the noise raised by the complainant could be heard easily by any one in the neighbourhood. Besides this, the submission is that the petitioner who is a poor labourer, had been facing the agony of trial for the last six years as the FIR in question was registered in the year 2002. The criminal jurisprudence is not only to punish the guilty to bring peace, discipline and harmony in the society but also to give opportunity to individuals to reform themselves. Within the parameters of law, an attempt has to be made to afford an opportunity to the individual to reform himself and lead the life of a normal, useful member of the Society. Hon'ble the Supreme Court in Karamjit Singh V. State (Delhi Admn.), 2001(9) Supreme Court Cases 161, considering this aspect of the matter, observed as under:- “.......Punishment in criminal cases is both punitive and reformative. The purpose is that the person found guilty of committing the offence is made to realise his fault and is deterred from repeating such acts in future. The reformative aspect is meant to enable the person concerned to relent and repent for his action and make himself acceptable to the society Criminal Revision No. 676 of 2008 4 as a useful social being. In determining the question of proper punishment in a criminal case, the court has to weigh the degree of culpability of the accused, its effect on others and the desirability of showing any leniency in the matter of punishment in the case. An act of balancing is, what is needed in such a case; a balance between the interest of the individual and the concern of the society; weighing the one against the other. Imposing a hard punishment on the accused serves a limited purpose but at the same time, it is to be kept in mind that relevance of deterrent punishment in matters of serious crimes affecting society should not be undermined. Within the parameters of the law an attempt has to be made to afford an opportunity to the individual to reform himself and lead the life of a normal, useful member of society and make his contribution in that regard. Denying such opportunity to a person who has been found to have committed offence in the facts and circumstances placed on record would only have a hardening attitude towards his fellow beings and towards society at large. Such a situation, has to be avoided, again within the permissible limits of law.” From the material on record, I do not find any justification to interfere in the conviction of the petitioner. Two Courts have already gone into the evidence led by the prosecution and the defence and have opined that the petitioner is guilty of offence committed by him. Re-appreciation of evidence does not fall within the domain of revisional jurisdiction. The view expressed by the Courts below on appreciation of evidence is justified on the basis of material on record. Accordingly the conviction of the petitioner is upheld. However, I find some mitigating circumstance as far as quantum of sentence awarded to the petitioner is concerned. The petitioner is a poor labourer. He had been facing agony of trial for the last six years and in the process, Criminal Revision No. 676 of 2008 5 for the offence committed by him, he has learnt enough lesson not to repeat any such crime in future as in the process of trial he had wasted a lot of his working days on which he could work and earn his livelihood being a daily wager. He should be given an opportunity to reform himself. He is in custody since March 19, 2008. Keeping in view the above observations, in my opinion, a sentence of three months imprisonment to the petitioner will serve the object for which he was held guilty and convicted. Accordingly, while upholding the conviction of the petitioner, substantive sentence awarded to him is reduced from six months to three months imprisonment for commission of offence under Sections 354 and 451 IPC and also from six months to three months imprisonment for commission of offence under Section 323 IPC. Levy of fine is upheld. In default of payment of fine, the petitioner will undergo further imprisonment for a period of 15 days. The petition is disposed of accordingly. (RAJESH BINDAL) JUDGE May 29, 2008 sunita