CRR No. 3245 of 2010 -1- IN THE PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT AT CHANDIGARH CRR No. 3245 of 2010 (O&M) Date of Decision :1.3.2011 Jug Pravesh .......... petitioner Versus State of Haryana ...... Respondent CORAM : HON'BLE Ms. JUSTICE RITU BAHRI Present : Mr. Anand Kumar Bishnoi, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. P.S. Virk, Addl. A.G., Haryana. **** RITU BAHRI, J. This criminal revision has been filed against the impugned judgment dated 15.11.2010 passed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Bhiwani whereby the appeal of the petitioner has been dismissed and upheld the judgment of conviction and sentence order passed by the learned trial Court vide which the petitioner has been convicted and awarded sentence for one year and and to pay fine of Rs. 500/- under Section 354/34 IPC. The petitioner has challenged the judgment of the learned Courts below on the ground that the learned Courts below have totally ignored the statements of PW-1, PW-2 & PW-3. There are material contradictions in the statement of PW1, who had stated that CRR No. 3245 of 2010 -2- police came at 9/10.00 a.m. on 20.7.2004 and further it was stated that the police came at 2/2.30 p.m. PW-2 stated that the application was given at 7.00 p.m. when they were going on patrolling duty. Similar statement has been made by the other police officials. PW1 has stated that Jug Pravesh was tied after apprehending whereas PW2 Hazari Lal stated that both the accused were produced on 20.7.2004. PW3 stated that when the police came, Jug Pravesh ran away whereas PW1 has not stated anything. As per prosecution, a case was registered on an application dated 20.7.2004, moved by Suman wife of Sombir on the allegations that on 19.7.2004 at about 11.00 p.m. when she along with her husband was sleeping on the tubewell in their field two person came and outraged her modesty. She identified one of them as neighbourer Suresh Kumar and another was not known to her. She raised an alarm and at this both the persons ran away. She came to know the name of other person as Jug Pravesh @ Leela son of Kunda Ram. An FIR was registered under Section 354/34 IPC. After investigation, challan was presented and after going through the entire evidence, the learned trial Court has convicted the petitioner under Section 354/34 IPC and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year and to pay a fine of Rs. 500/-. On appeal, vide judgment dated 15.11.2010 the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Bhiwani dismissed the appeal and upheld the judgment of conviction and sentence order passed by the learned trial Court. CRR No. 3245 of 2010 -3- In revision, it has been alleged that there are many contradictions in the statements of the witnesses and the petitioner has been falsely implicated in this case. Learned counsel for the petitioner has stated that the petitioner has already undergone 1 ½ month sentence after the conviction and he be released on probation. Mr. P.S. Virk, Addl. A.G., Haryana has placed on record the custody certificate by way of affidavit of Superintendent District Jail, Bhiwani. As per this custody certificate, the petitioner has already under gone 1 month and 28 days from 15.11.2010 to 11.1.2011. Hence, today when the matter has been taken up the petitioner has already undergone 3 months and 14 days out of one year. There is no contradiction in the deposition of the witnesses, therefore, the judgments of the learned lower Courts are liable to be upheld as they are based on the evidence on record and oral testimony of the witnesses. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the impugned judgment and orders. I find no ground to interfere with the impugned judgment and orders. Consequently, the judgments and orders passed by the learned Courts below do not call for any interference by this Court. However, I am of the view that in view of the emerging circumstances the petitioner should be released on probation. The petitioner has undergone almost 3 months and 14 days of actual sentence of one year rigorous imprisonment. He is a first offender. The above circumstances are sufficient to extend the benefit of CRR No. 3245 of 2010 -4- probation to the petitioner. Consequently, this revision petition is partly allowed to the extent that the petitioner's conviction under Section 354/34 IPC is upheld and the sentence awarded to him is modified to the extent that instead of undergoing the remaining part of sentence the petitioner is directed to be released on probation on executing bonds to the tune of Rs. 30,000/- with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Bhiwani. The petitioner is however, directed to file an undertaking to keep peace and maintain good behaviour for one year and to appear and undergo sentence as and when called upon to do so. 1.3.2011 (RITU BAHRI) 'sp' JUDGE