In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh Crl. Revision No. 1144 of 2001 Date of decision: February 13, 2009 Joga Singh ... Petitioner vs. State of Haryana ... Respondent Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice A.N. Jindal Present: Mr. Kulwant Singh, Advocate with Mr. Ashish Aggarwal, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Kartar Singh, AAG, Haryana for the respondent. A.N. Jindal, J Challenge in this petition is to the judgment dated 10.7.2001 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Karnal, dismissing the appeal filed by the accused-petitioner Joga Singh (herein referred as 'the petitioner') against the judgment dated 22.9.2000 passed by the Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Karnal, convicting and sentencing him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year and to pay fine of Rs.1000/- under Section 354 IPC. The brief resume of facts is that on 26.8.1993 complainant Balbir Kaur submitted written complaint (Ex.PA) to ASI Lila Ram, alleging therein that, on 13.8.1993, at about 9.00 a.m, when she was present in her house, the petitioner came and inquired about her son Kulwant, to which she responded that he had gone to village Beholi. Thereafter, he demanded Rs.200/- from her and when she went inside the room to bring the money, the petitioner followed her and caught hold her hand and tried to outrage her modesty. She raised alarm, at which Kehar Singh son of Ujjagar Singh and Baldev Singh son of Richhpal came at her rescue. On seeing them, the petitioner escaped. On the basis of the aforesaid complaint, a case was registered and investigated. Completion of the investigation was followed by a report under Section 173 Cr.P.C. The petitioner was charged for the offence under Section 354 IPC to which he pleaded not guilty and opted to contest. Crl. Revision No. 1144 of 2001 -2- In order to substantiate the charge, the prosecution examined Balbir Kaur (PW1), Kehar Singh (PW2) and Baldev Singh (PW3) When examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C. he denied all the allegations and pleaded his false implication in the case. He produced copy of the judgment Ex.DA in his defence. Ultimately the trial ended in conviction. The appeal preferred by him also failed. Arguments heard. Record perused. At the very out set, learned counsel for the petitioner without assailing the judgment of conviction has urged that the petitioner is a first offender and has suffered agony on account of the protracted proceedings, therefore, a lenient view in the matter be taken. Having examined the impugned judgment, it appears to have been passed on appreciation of the evidence in the right perspective. No irregularity much less illegality has been pointed out or detected resulting into miscarriage of justice. Consequently, the judgment of conviction is maintained. As regards the quantum of sentence, it may be observed that the occurrence took place way back in the year 1993 and the petitioner has suffered a lot of agony on account of the protracted proceedings. No bad antecedents have been brought on record in order to dub the petitioner as habitual offender. Consequently, I deem it a fit case where some leniency could be extended to the petitioner. Resultantly, the instant petition is dismissed with the modification in the sentence and reduce the same to three months rigorous imprisonment without alteration in the sentence of fine. Copy of the judgment be sent to the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Karnal for compliance. February 13, 2009 (A.N. Jindal) deepak Judge