Munish vs State Of Haryana And Anr on 24 May, 2017

CRR-1676-2017 (OM) -1-

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH

CRR-1676-2017 (OM)
Date of Decision:- 24.05.2017
Munish
….Petitioner
Versus

State of Haryana and another
….Respondents

CORAM: HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE RITU BAHRI

Present: Mr. Rakesh Nuniwal, Advocate
for the petitioner.

Mr. D.R. Singla, DAG, Haryana.

Mr. Maharaj Kumar, Advocate
for respondent No.2.

****

RITU BAHRI, J. (Oral)

Present petition has been filed against the judgment of

conviction and order of sentence dated 21.04.2017, passed by the

Additional Sessions Judge, Karnal (hereinafter referred to as “the appellate

Court), vide which the appeal filed by complainant-respondent No.1 has

been accepted.

The appellate Court, vide judgment of conviction dated

21.04.2017, convicted the accused-petitioner under Section 354 IPC and

sentenced him as under:–

Under Sections 354 IPC Six months R.I. and to pay fine of `1,000/-

and in default of payment of fine, to further
undergo S.I. for one month.

1 of 3
::: Downloaded on – 08-06-2017 01:42:46 :::
CRR-1676-2017 (OM) -2-

Brief facts of the case are that on 23.01.2013 complainant-

respondent No.2 was standing in her street near her house at about 4.00 PM

and the petitioner/accused came from his house and allegedly scared her and

tried to outrage her modesty while pulling her. Thereafter, the F.I.R was

registered against the petitioner-accused.

The trial Court after going through the entire evidence led by

the prosecution, came to conclusion that the prosecution failed to prove its

case beyond reasonable doubt and therefore by extending benefit of doubt,

the petitioner/accused was acquitted of the charges framed against him, vide

READ  Navdeep Singh @ Mintu vs State Of Punjab And Anr on 9 May, 2017

judgment of acquittal dated 12.05.2016.

However, the appeal against the said judgment and order, filed

by complainant/respondent No.2, was allowed by the Appellate Court and

the judgment of acquittal was set aside and the petitioner was held guilty

and convicted for the commission of an offence punishable under Section

354 IPC.

Learned counsel for the petitioner, during the course of

arguments, does not challenge the conviction on merits and restricts his

prayer to reduce the sentence of the petitioner to the period already

undergone by him.

Learned counsel for the petitioner, however, further contends

that the petitioner has already suffered the agony of protracted trial,

spinning over a period of time. He is a first time offender. No other case is

pending against him.

Moreover, learned counsel for the petitioner has handed over a

demand draft of `30,000/- to learned counsel for respondent No.2 as

compensation, today in the Court.

2 of 3
08-06-2017 01:42:47 :::
CRR-1676-2017 (OM) -3-

Having examined the impugned judgment, no illegality, much

less irregularity has been found therein warranting interference by this

Court and accordingly the same is upheld. However, a lenient view can be

taken on the quantum of sentence of the petitioner.

Accordingly, keeping in view the submissions made by the

learned counsel for the petitioner, it is a fit case where the sentence qua

imprisonment is liable to be reduced to already undergone by the petitioner.

Hence, the conviction of the petitioner under Section 354 IPC is maintained

and the sentence qua the imprisonment of the petitioner is reduced to the

READ  Rajbir Singh vs State on 21 July, 2014

period already undergone by him and a direction is given that the petitioner

be released to the satisfaction of CJM/Duty Magistrate, Karnal.

With the above modification, the present revision petition stand

disposed of.

May 24, 2017 ( RITU BAHRI )
naresh.k JUDGE

Whether speaking/reasoned Yes
Whether reportable No

3 of 3
08-06-2017 01:42:47 :::

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *