Criminal Revision No. 2668 of 2009 -1- In the High Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh Criminal Revision No. 2668 of 2009 (O&M) Date of decision : 13.10.2009 Mahinder Singh ..... Petitioner vs State of Haryana ..... Respondent Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rajesh Bindal Present: Mr. Surender Dhull, Advocate, for the petitioner. Rajesh Bindal J. The petitioner was convicted and sentenced by the trial court on the allegations that on 1.3.2002 in the evening the complainant was sleeping with her three years old daughter. Her brother-in-law (dever) Vishnu Dutt was sleeping in the verandah. At about 11.00 p.m. a person came to her room and started pressing her breasts. She woke up all of a sudden and raised alarm. On hearing the noise, her dever came to the room and tried to rescue her but the accused caused injuries to him and also to the prosecutrix and succeeded in running away. He left behind his blanket and one shoe. They identified him as Mahinder Singh son of Inder Singh resident of Village Ghararsi, District Kurukshetra. Due to bad weather they could not report the matter in the night and reported the same on 2.3.2002. With these allegations the petitioner was tried and convicted by the trial court vide judgment dated 29.4.2009 to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year under Section 452 IPC and Rs. 100/- fine and further to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year under Section 354 IPC and further sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/- under Section 323 IPC. In default of payment of fine, he was to further undergo simple imprisonment for one month. Against the judgment dated 29.4.2009, the petitioner filed appeal before the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Kurukhsetra, which was dismissed. However, the sentence was reduced to six months from one year under Sections 452, 354 IPC. It is this order which is impugned in the present revision by the petitioner before this court. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the paper-book. The submission of the petitioner that delay in lodging the FIR has remained unexplained by the prosecution which has demolished the prosecution case, has no force. It has come in the evidence that due to bad weather the Criminal Revision No. 2668 of 2009 -2- complainant could not approach the police in the night. Moreover, the occurrence took place at 11.00 p.m. on 1.3.2002 and FIR was lodged on 2.3.2002 and the medical examination was conducted at 1.30 p.m. on the same very day. The complainant has corroborated the prosecution version and nothing has come on record which can be believed to discard the prosecution case. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the court below has acquitted the petitioner under Section 323 IPC but wrongly convicted him under Section 452 and 354 IPC. He submitted that if on the same evidence the petitioner has been acquitted under Section 323 IPC he should have been acquitted for the offences under Sections 452 and 354 IPC as well. This submission of the petitioner has also no force as a bare perusal of the judgment of the court below shows that the petitioner was not acquitted under Section 323 IPC as appeal filed by him was dismissed in totality. A fine of Rs. 1,000/- was imposed after conviction under Section 323 IPC. The petitioner had already deposited fine of Rs. 1,100/- imposed on him by the trial court so it cannot be said that he has been acquitted under Section 323 IPC. There was no suggestion about any previous enmity of the complainant with the petitioner and no woman will level allegations regarding her chastity and involve any person falsely. The court below has already taken a lenient view towards the petitioner and reduced the sentence awarded to him to six months and release on probation in such cases gives a bad impression to the society and would increase the morale of criminals. On the basis of the evidence on record, it cannot be said that the courts below had done wrong in convicting and sentencing the petitioner. Accordingly, findings of the court below are upheld and the revision petition is dismissed being without merit. 13.10.2009 ( Rajesh Bindal) vs. Judge