Bhagwan Dass And Anr vs State Of Punjab on 9 January, 2018

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH

CRR No. 3986 of 2017 (OM)
Date of Decision: January 09, 2018

Bhagwan Dass and another
..Appellant(s)
Versus

State of Punjab
..Respondent(s)

CORAM: HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANITA CHAUDHRY

Present: Mr. Deepak Aggarwal, Advocate
for the petitioners.
*****

ANITA CHAUDHRY, J.

This revision is directed against the judgments of both the

Courts below. The trial Court had convicted and sentenced the

petitioners to the following punishment:-

Under Sections Rigorous Fine In default
Imprisonment for a of payment
period of of fine
451/34 IPC 1 year Rs.500/- 7 days
323
IPC 6 months – –
506
IPC 6 months – –
354/34
IPC 1 year – –

The case had been registered against the petitioners and

some others relating to an incident which occurred on 21.04.2010. The

incident occurred at about 8:30/9:00 PM when the complainant along

with her brother and mother was present in their home. The main door

of their house was open. Bhagwan Dass and some other persons started

abusing the complainant and her mother and when they questioned

1 of 3
15-01-2018 05:39:27 :::
them then Bhagwan Dass and the other persons with him raised lalkara

and stated that she should not be spared and the persons named by the

complainant forcibly entered their house. Some of them were drunk and

with an intention to outrage her modesty her clothes were torn. The

complainant had also given the motive for the attack.

The police registered the case and filed the challan against

13 persons including the petitioners. The accused pleaded not guilty and

they were put on trial. Besides the complainant the Medical Officers

and the police officials were examined.

The plea taken by the accused in the defence was that it

was a case of false implication and complainant Anu Bala used to sell

and buy poppy husk and a resolution was passed by the Panchayat. The

trial Magistrate minutely examined the evidence and noted the injuries

suffered by the complainant and rejected the defence and convicted

some of the accused to sentence of one year and 6 months as fully

detailed in para 23 of the order. All the sentences were ordered to run

concurrently.

Aggrieved by the order an appeal was preferred. The

Additional Sessions Judge vide order dated 13.07.2017 set aside the

conviction under Section 354 IPC but maintained the conviction under

Sections 451, 323 and 506 IPC but considering the fact that all the

accused were first offenders and the offences were minor in nature,

ordered the release of the appellants on probation for a period of one

year. The First Appellate Court noted that the complainant and the

appellants were neighbours and they had to live together in the same

locality and it would be in the fitness of things that a chance be given to

2 of 3
15-01-2018 05:39:28 :::
them to live in peace.

I have heard the counsel for the revisionists.

The counsel has taken me through the judgments of both

the Courts below but I do not find any illegality. The prosecution

witnesses had categorically deposed about the incident and the role

played by each accused. The complainant had suffered injuries which

are noted in the MLR. The findings so far as the conviction are

concerned are affirmed. The First Appellate Court has shown extreme

leniency when it ordered release of the accused on probation. It is not a

fit case for interference. The revision is dismissed.

(ANITA CHAUDHRY)
January 09, 2018 JUDGE
sunil

Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No

Whether reportable : Yes/No

3 of 3
15-01-2018 05:39:28 :::

Leave a Comment

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