IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Criminal Appeal No. 696-SB of 1998 Date of Decision : January 13, 2010 Baljinder Singh and another ....Appellants Versus State of Punjab .....Respondent CORAM : HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE T.P.S. MANN Present : None for the appellants. Mr. P.S. Sidhu, Additional Advocate General, Punjab T.P.S. MANN, J.(Oral) The appellants were tried by Additional Sessions Judge, Jalandhar for offences punishable under Section 354 and Section 366 read with Section 511 IPC. Vide judgment and order dated 21.8.1998, the trial Court acquitted both the appellants under Section 366 read with Section 511 IPC. However, they were convicted under Section 354 IPC and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of 9 months and to pay a fine of Rs.500/- each. In default of payment of fine, the defaulting appellant was to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for 3 months. According to the prosecution, on 6.8.1996 at about 4.30 Criminal Appeal No. 696-SB of 1998 -2- P.M., when the prosecutrix, while going to the house of Avtar Singh, Sarpanch, where she worked as a maid servant, reached near the house of one Ghuli Sansi, a white gypsy vehicle was standing there. She kept on walking and reached near the house of Balbir Singh, Lamberdar. In the meantime, the aforementioned gypsy, driven by Baljinder Singh- appellant, reached there. Gurmukh Singh-appellant was also sitting in the front seat of the gypsy. Both of them stopped the gypsy and after alighting from the same, caught hold of the prosecutrix forcibly from her arms. They dragged her in order to seat her in the gypsy. She was also threatened that in case of her raising alarm, she would be killed. However, the prosecutrix managed to raise an alarm, which attracted her employer Avtar Singh, Sarpanch and one Naresh Kumar. On seeing them, the appellants fled away from the scene in their gypsy. An attempt was thereafter made by the villagers to effect a compromise between the parties but the same did not materilise. Ultimately, on 10.8.1996 the prosecutrix, while accompanied by her father Gulzari Ram and her employer Avtar Singh, Sarpanch left for the Police Station to lodge a report when ASI Gurmukh Singh met them at Bus Stand Karnana, where the statement of the prosecutrix was recorded on the basis of which formal FIR was registered at Police Station Banga. After completion of the investigation, the police presented final report under Section 173 Cr.P.C. against the appellants. Later on, they were charged for the offences under Section 354 and Section 366 Criminal Appeal No. 696-SB of 1998 -3- read with Section 511 IPC to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. In order to prove its case, the prosecution had examined PW1 prosecutrix, PW2 Madan Lal-Draftsman, PW3 Ravinder Kumar, PW4 Dilbagh Singh, PW5 SI Mohinder Singh, PW6 Avtar Singh, Sarpanch, PW7 Naresh Kumar, PW8 Constable Satwinder Singh and PW9 SI Gurmukh Singh. During their examination under Section 313 Cr.P.C., the appellants denied the prosecution evidence and pleaded that they were innocent. They claimed to have been falsely implicated at the instance of Avtar Singh, Sarpanch as they had supported Jaswant Singh, who had opposed Avtar Singh in the election to the post of Sarpanch. However, they did not examine any evidence in support of their plea. As mentioned above, the trial Court held that the appellants were liable for the offence under Section 354 IPC only, whereas they were not found to have committed offence under Section 366 read with Section 511 IPC. The prosecution had examined Avtar Singh, Sarpanch as PW6 and Naresh Kumar as PW7, as both of them had seen the occurrence on an alarm being raised by the prosecutrix. No material could be brought on record by the accused as to why the aforementioned Criminal Appeal No. 696-SB of 1998 -4- independent witnesses had been deposing against them. On the other hand, despite being in office as Sarpanch, Avtar Singh PW6 was not able to get a criminal case registered against the appellants for a period of 4 days after the occurrence as it seems that pressure had been exerted upon him to bring about an amicable settlement between the appellants on the one hand and the prosecutrix on the other. Only when the efforts made by the villagers did not materilise that the prosecutrix was able to make a statement before ASI Gurmukh Singh on the basis of which criminal case was registered. Under these circumstances, no case is made out for interfering in the findings recorded by the trial Court, whereby the appellants were held guilty under Section 354 IPC. The occurrence had taken place on 6.8.1996. A period of more than 13 years has elapsed since then. All this while, both the appellants have been facing the agony of criminal prosecution. They have been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of nine months apart from paying a sum of Rs.500/- as fine. Both the appellants remained in jail as under trials from 11.8.1996 upto 4.9.1996. They had, thus, spent a period of about one month in jail as under trials. Under these circumstances, no useful purpose would be served by sending the appellants behind the bars, once again, so as to serve their remaining sentences. Ends of justice would be amply met if their sentences of imprisonment are reduced to that already undergone by them. At the same time, the fine of Rs.500/- imposed upon each of them Criminal Appeal No. 696-SB of 1998 -5- can be enhanced to Rs.5000/-. Resultantly, the conviction of the appellants under Section 354 IPC is maintained and their substantive sentences of imprisonment are reduced to that already undergone by them. However, the fine of Rs.500/- imposed upon them by the trial Court is enhanced to Rs.5,000/-. In default of payment of fine, the defaulting appellant shall undergo rigorous imprisonment for 3 months. The appeal is, accordingly, disposed of. ( T.P.S. MANN ) January 13, 2010 JUDGE satish