Crl. Revision No.430 of 2010 1 IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Crl. Revision No.430 of 2010 (O&M) Date of decision: 4.8.2010 Devender @ Gilu ...Petitioner Versus State of Haryana ...Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJAN GUPTA Present: Mr. Suresh Ahlawat, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. Gaurav Dhir, Deputy Advocate General Haryana. Rajan Gupta, J. (oral) Petitioner Devender alias Gilu had been convicted by the Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Jind, vide impugned judgment/order dated 12th August, 2008, under section 377 IPC and was sentenced to undergo RI for three years and to pay a fine of Rs.10,000/-. The petitioner preferred appeal against the judgment of his conviction/sentence, which was dismissed by the Sessions Judge, Jind, vide judgment dated 19.8.2009. Feeling aggrieved against the judgments of both the courts below, the petitioner has approached this court through the instant Criminal Revision. Learned counsel for the petitioner states that he is limiting his prayer only to the extent of reduction in the sentence awarded and does not assail the judgment of conviction. Learned State counsel, on the other hand submits that in case conviction of petitioner is maintained, the court may reduce the Crl. Revision No.430 of 2010 2 sentence as deemed appropriate in the circumstances of the case. I have heard learned counsel for both the sides. Briefly, the prosecution case runs thus: Victim Vipin Kumar was studying in 2nd standard. After the school time, he alongwith his friends Bandra and Deepak had gone to play in the fields. There was heap of straws. They had been playing hide and seek there. Field of the accused (petitioner herein) was located nearby. Coming there, he caught hold of hand of Vipin Kumar and started taking him towards the sugarcane fields of Ramesh. The victim started weeping. The petitioner soothed him and persuading him not to weep, promised him payment of Rs.5/-. He then took him to the sugarcane fields of Ramesh. Bandra and Deepak, friends of the victim got scared. They had also started weeping and rushed towards the village. It is further the case of prosecution that after taking the victim in the sugarcane fields, the petitioner removed pants from the lower limbs of Vipin Kumar, as also his own trousers, inserted his penis into the buttocks of the victim and pressed it hard, which resulted in oozing of blood from the anus of the victim. He started weeping loudly. After some time, the accused left him in the fields, tied his trousers and went to his fields and engaged himself in ploughing his fields with the tractor. Vipin Kumar was weeping and came to his house. He told his tale of woes to his mother Smt. Santro and thereafter his father was called from the fields. On the statement of Vipin Kumar victim, FIR was registered. Investigation had come into motion and during investigation, the victim was medicolegally examined. After completion of investigation, challan Crl. Revision No.430 of 2010 3 against the accused was presented in the trial court. Finding prima facie case under Section 377 IPC, charge was framed against the accused/petitioner, to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. To substantiate its case against the accused/petitioner, the prosecution examined as many as five witnesses. By way of additional evidence, report of Forensic Science Laboratory, Madhuban (Ex.PZ) had also been put in evidence by the prosecution. The statement of the accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C. was recorded, wherein all the incriminating evidence available on record was put to him. He refuted the incriminating circumstances and pleaded false implication. He did not lead any evidence in his defence. On the basis of the evidence on record, the learned trial court held the petitioner guilty of the charge framed against him and sentenced him as already indicated above. The appeal filed against the said judgment was also dismissed by the learned Sessions Judge, Jind on 19.8.2009. On a perusal of the judgments of both the courts below, I am of the considered view that the trial court has rightly appreciated the evidence on record while holding the petitioner guilty of the charge framed against him. The appellate court has also rightly dismissed the appeal. There is no infirmity or illegality in the findings given by both the courts below. The conviction of the petitioner is, thus, affirmed. Even counsel for the petitioner, during the course of arguments, has not assailed the judgment of conviction. He has, Crl. Revision No.430 of 2010 4 however, pleaded for reduction in the quantum of sentence on the ground that the petitioner is a poor person and main bread winner of his family and not a previous convict. He has stated that he is conscious that the scope in revision is very limited as evidence of the witnesses cannot be re-appreciated and re-evaluated. Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case as also the fact that the petitioner is a poor man and sole bread earner in the family, I deem it fit to reduce his substantive sentence to one year and six months R.I. The fine imposed by the trial court is, however, enhanced from Rs.10,000/- to Rs.20,000/- to be paid as compensation to the victim/complainant. The fine be deposited within three months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order. However, in case fine aforesaid is not deposited within the stipulated period, the modification in quantum of sentence shall stand withdrawn and the petitioner shall undergo the remaining period of sentence as awarded by the trial court. Except with modification in the quantum of sentence, as indicated herein above, the revision petition is dismissed. (RAJAN GUPTA) JUDGE 4.8.2010 'rajpal' To be referred to the Reporters or not: Yes / No