ANIL KUMAR Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE Petitioner/accused, Anil Kumar, was charged for the offence under Section 354 IPC and was tried by JMIC, Mahendergarh, who convicted him of that offence and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year and to a fine of Rs. 500/ - and in default thereof, to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one month. Against that conviction and sentence, the accused preferred an appeal, which was dismissed by the Sessions Judge, Narnaul, vide judgment dated 18.7.2005. The present revision has been preferred against that conviction and sentence.

(2.) IN this case, the criminal machinery was set in motion and the FIR was registered on the basis of the statement of Saroj, prosecutrix/complainant (P.W. 1). She narrated therein that on 12.11.1998 at about 1.30 p.m., she had gone to flour mill of Kiran for getting the wheat grinded. That Kiran asked her to accompany her to her house for getting the stitching machine. Thereafter, she accompanied her to her house where Anil Kumar -accused, who is her son, was present. After asking her son to give the stitching machine to her, Kiran left that place. She was asked by the accused to herself take the stitching machine from the almirah and when she picked up that machine, the accused with dishonest intention caught hold of her from her back side and tried to outrage her modesty. After getting herself freed from the accused, she came to her house and disclosed this fact to her brother -in -law, Braham Parkash. She also narrated other facts in her statement regarding the receiving of an injury by the accused by a fall on the stone and causing of hurt by him to Kiran and also causing of hurt by datali by Sandeep. However, the accused was never charged for that offence. The case was investigated by Chajju Ram, ASI (P.W. 3), who went to the place of occurrence and after inspecting the same, prepared rough site plan. He recorded the statements of the witnesses and arrested the accused. After completion of the investigation, challan was presented before the JMIC.

(3.) LEARNED Counsel for the Petitioner/accused did not assail the findings of conviction recorded by the trial Court and upheld by the appellate Court. He submitted that at the time of the commission of the offence, the accused was 18 years old and has already done his MBA and has undergone some part of the sentence of imprisonment so imposed upon him. He prayed that the benefit of probation be extended to the accused.