CRR-1676-2017 (OM) -1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
Date of Decision:- 24.05.2017
State of Haryana and another
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
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
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
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
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
May 24, 2017 ( RITU BAHRI )
Whether speaking/reasoned Yes
Whether reportable No
3 of 3
08-06-2017 01:42:47 :::