CRA-S-2767-SB-2010 (OM) 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
218
CRA-S-2767-SB-2010 (OM)
Date of Decision:02.07.2019
Harish Chander …..Appellant
Versus
State of Punjab …..Respondent
CORAM: HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE HARI PAL VERMA.
Present: Mr. Arun Takhi, Advocate,
for the appellant.
Mr. Sukhbeer Singh, AAG, Punjab.
Ms. Manjeet Kaur, Advocate for
Mr. Chander Shekhar Singhal, Advocate,
for the complainant.
****
HARI PAL VERMA, J.(Oral)
CRM-13262-2019
Prayer in this application filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is for
exemption from filing certified copy as well as true typed copy of the
compromise dated 16.03.2019 (Annexure P-1).
Application is allowed, as prayed for.
CRM-13271-2019
Prayer in this application filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is for
placing on record copy of compromise dated 16.03.2019 (Annexure P-1).
Application is allowed, as prayed for. The copy of compromise
dated 16.03.2019 (Annexure P-1) is taken on record, subject to all just
exceptions.
1 of 4
14-07-2019 14:18:31 :::
CRA-S-2767-SB-2010 (OM) 2
CRM-13272-2019
Prayer in this application filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is for
fixing actual date of hearing in the appeal.
Application is allowed, as prayed for and the main appeal is
taken up on Board for final disposal.
CRA-S-2767-SB-2010
Appellant has filed the present appeal against the judgment
dated 19.10.2010 passed by learned Sessions Judge, Hoshiarpur, whereby in
FIR No.13 dated 04.02.2009 under Sections 376/Section511, Section342, Section120-B IPC,
registered at Police Station City, Hoshiarpur, he was convicted for the
offence punishable under Section 354 IPC and vide separate order of even
date, he was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of
one year, to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/- and in default of payment of fine, to
further undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of three months.
As per prosecution, the allegation against the appellant is that
on 04.02.2009 at about 12.40 PM, when the prosecutrix and the proprietor
of the shop were sitting in the shop, Surinder Singh was also sitting in the
shop. During this time, appellant-Harish Kumar alias Honey son of Kiran
Bala came inside the shop and asked the prosecutrix to go inside the shop
and switch on the TV. However, when the prosecutrix went inside to switch
on the TV, Kiran Bala and Surinder Singh went outside the room and
appellant-accused bolted the door from inside. He caught hold of the
prosecutrix from her arm and gave her teeth bites on her face and cheeks
and further pulled her breast. He threw her on sofa, broke the string of her
salwar and tried to forcibly rape her. However, when the prosecutrix raised
hue and cry to save her, which attracted Krishan Lal their neighbour, Vishal
2 of 4
14-07-2019 14:18:32 :::
CRA-S-2767-SB-2010 (OM) 3
and Partap Singh, broke open the door and saved the prosecutrix from
appellant-accused. The accused tried to run away, but the people
apprehended him on the spot and he was given beatings.
Learned counsel for the appellant states that in view of the
compromise-deed dated 16.03.2019 (Annexure P-1) so arrived at between
the parties, the sentence awarded to the appellant may be reduced to the
period already undergone by him. He has contended that the appellant is not
a previous convict. He is suffering the agony of criminal proceedings since
04.02.2009 i.e. the date when the FIR in question was registered against
him.
On the other hand, learned State counsel has argued that the
appellant does not deserve any interference in the present appeal. He states
that as against the awarded sentence of 01 year, the appellant remained in
custody for about 01 month.
Heard learned counsel for the parties.
On perusal of the judgment passed by learned trial Court, this
Court is of the considered view that the trial Court has rightly appreciated
the evidence on record while holding the appellant guilty for commission of
offence under Section 354 IPC. There is no illegality or perversity in the
findings given by learned trial Court which may warrant interference of this
Court. Even otherwise, learned counsel for the appellant has not assailed
the judgment of conviction and has, rather, restricted his arguments qua the
quantum of sentence only. The conviction of the appellant is, therefore,
affirmed.
However, considering the fact that the matter has been
amicably settled vide compromise-deed dated 16.03.2019 (Annexure P-1)
3 of 4
14-07-2019 14:18:32 :::
CRA-S-2767-SB-2010 (OM) 4
and taking into account the protracted trial, antecedents of the appellant,
coupled with the fact that as against the awarded sentence of 01 year, he has
already suffered incarceration for a period of 01 month, this Court feels that
ends of justice would be met if the sentence awarded to the appellant is
reduced to the period already undergone by him.
Ordered accordingly.
With the aforesaid modification in the order of sentence,
present appeal stands dismissed.
July 02, 2019 (HARI PAL VERMA)
seema JUDGE
Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes/No
Whether Reportable: Yes/No
4 of 4
14-07-2019 14:18:32 :::
