CRR No.4476 of 2017 (OM) 1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH

CRR No.4476 of 2017 (OM)
Date of Decision: 14.03.2018
Pawan Kumar
…… Petitioner
Versus

State of Haryana
…… Respondent

CORAM:- HON’BLE MRS.JUSTICE LISA GILL

Present: Mr. Krishan Singh, Advocate
for the petitioner.

Mr. Anmol Malik, AAG., Haryana.

*****

LISA GILL, J(Oral).

The petitioner has been convicted for the offences punishable

under Sections 292, 294, 341, 354, 506, 509 read with Section 34 IPC, by

the learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Yamuna Nagar at Jagadhri, vide

judgment dated 22.11.2013. By a separate order of sentence dated

25.11.2013, the applicant/appellant has been sentenced as under:-

Offence u/s Sentence

292 IPC Simple imprisonment for three months
besides, pay a fine of Rs.200/-

294 IPC Simple imprisonment for one month

341 IPC Simple imprisonment for a period of six
months

354 IPC Simple imprisonment for one year besides,
pay a fine of Rs.100/-.

506 Simple imprisonment for six months

509 IPC Simple imprisonment for three months
besides, pay a fine of Rs.200/-

1 of 4
18-03-2018 03:12:40 :::
CRR No.4476 of 2017 (OM) 2

Appeal preferred by the petitioner has also been dismissed by

the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Yamuna Nagar at Jagadhri, vide

impugned judgment dated 13.11.2017.

Aggrieved therefrom the present revision petition has been

filed.

At the outset, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the

petitioner does not challenge the impugned judgments on merits, but seeks

reduction of the sentence on the ground of parity with the other co-accused.

It is submitted that three persons i.e. the present petitioner-

Pawan Kumar, Sahil and Dolly wife of Tilak Raj were proceeded against in

FIR No. 303 dated 17.07.2010, under Sections 292, 294, 341, 354, 506, 509

read with Section 34 IPC. All the accused persons including the petitioner

were sentenced qua the offences punishable under Sections 292, 294, 341,

354, 506, 509 read with Section 34 IPC vide judgment dated 22.11.2017 by

the learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Yamuna Nagar at Jagadhri.

Appeals were preferred by all the accused persons. Appeals

preferred by co-convicts Dolly and Sahil were dismissed by a separate order

passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Yamuna Nagar at Jagadhri on

09.06.2014.

Criminal Revision No. 1845 of 2014 filed by the abovesaid co-

convicts was dismissed while maintaining the conviction of the said persons

though the sentence imposed upon them was reduced to the one already

undergone i.e. about six months. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends

that the role attributed to the co-accused Sahil is more serious then the one

attributed to the present petitioner. As per the complainant, FIR and

2 of 4
18-03-2018 03:12:41 :::
CRR No.4476 of 2017 (OM) 3

statement of the complainant/witnesses, co-convict Sahil has been attributed

a specific overt act of outraging the modesty of the victim, whereas the

present petitioner is alleged to have send vulgar messages on the mobile of

the victim. It is thus prayed that the sentence imposed upon the petitioner be

also reduced to the one undergone by him i.e. about four months.

Photocopy of decision dated 08.12.2014 passed in CRR No.

1845 of 2014, furnished in Court is taken on record subject to just

exceptions.

Heard learned counsel for the parties. I have gone through order

dated 08.12.2014 as well as the file of this case.

Learned counsel for the State is unable to deny that the overt act

of outraging the modesty of the complainant is attributed to the co-convict

Sahil and the present petitioner is alleged to have sent vulgar letters and

obscene messages (on the cell) to the complainant. It is further not in dispute

that the sentence imposed upon the co-convict Sahil was reduced to the one

already undergone i.e. six months of the actual sentence. The present FIR

relates to the year 2010 i.e. before the amendment in the provision of Section

354 IPC. As per the unamended provision minimum sentence was not

stipulated. It was provided that anyone guilty of the said offence would be

punishable with imprisonment of either description for a term which may

extend to two years or with fine or with both.

Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case as well

as decision dated 08.12.2014 passed in CRR No. 1845 of 2014, conviction

of the petitioner under Sections 292, 294, 341, 506, 509 read with Section 34

IPC, is maintained. However, the sentence imposed upon the petitioner

3 of 4
18-03-2018 03:12:41 :::
CRR No.4476 of 2017 (OM) 4

under Section 354 IPC is reduced from one year to six months. Fine imposed

upon the petitioner is maintained. All the sentences shall run concurrently.

With the aforesaid modification in the order of sentence, this

petition is dismissed.

[LISA GILL]
14.03.2018 Judge
s.khan
Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No.
Whether reportable : Yes/No.

4 of 4
18-03-2018 03:12:41 :::