SURAJ BHAN Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE Petitioner/accused, Suraj Bhan, alongwith Mool Chand, was tried by SDJM, Nuh. He was convicted for the offences under Sections 323 and 325 IPC, whereas Mool Chand was convicted for the offence under Section 377 IPC. The following sentence was imposed upon the accused by that trial court:

(2.) THE prosecution story is, that on 22.9.1997, Rahul Kumar, aged 5/6 years, son of Pradeep Kumar, and grand son of Chokh Ram, complainant/injured (P.W. -2), was playing outside his house. He was taken to an uninhabited place by Mool Chand -accused and made him to hold his penis and thereafter was shaking the same. In the meanwhile, Surinder Kumar came to that place and saw that illegal act of that accused and reprimanded him as to why he was getting such an act done from the child. On 25.9.1997, Pradeep Kumar was going to lodge a report with the police regarding that act of the accused, whereas the complainant was sitting inside Shiv Mandir. Suraj Bhan -accused came to that place and started abusing him. At that time, he was holding a lathi in his hand, and while saying that he would teach him a lesson for getting the report lodged against his father, gave three blows on his left buttocks, one on the left side of his chest and one on his left eye. The complainant raised an alarm, which attracted Daya Nand (P.W. -4) and Chhote Lal (P.W. -5) to the spot, who saved him from the accused. While leaving the spot, that accused threatened to kill him in future. The complainant was proceeding to the police station to lodge a report when Mehender Singh, HC (P.W. -6) met him on the way. He made his statement Ex. P.W. 2/A about all these facts before that Head Constable, who after making his endorsement Ex. P.W. 6/A upon the same sent that to the police station and on the basis thereof FIR Ex. P.W. 1/A was registered against the accused under Sections 323 and 506 IPC. The Head Constable went to the place of occurrence and after inspecting the same prepared rough site plan Ex. P.W. 6/C. The complainant was medically examined by Dr. Sunita Sharma (P.W. -1), who found five injuries on his person, which were detailed in the medico legal report Ex. P.W. 1/A. On that very day, Pradeep Kumar gave written application to the officer in -charge of the police station in which he narrated the above said incident of 22.9.1997. The Head Constable went to the place of that occurrence and after inspecting the same, prepared rough site plan Ex. P.W. 6/B. The injuries on the person of the complainant were radiologically examined by Dr. B.B. Aggarwal (P.W. -7), who found fracture of the 7th rib and gave his report Ex. P.W. 7/A. On the basis of that report, injury No. 3 on the person of the complainant was declared grievous. The accused was arrested on 28.9.1997. Mool Chand -accused was medically examined by Dr. P.K. Sharma, who found that he was capable of performing sexual act. After completion of the investigation, challan was put in before the SDJM, Nuh, who found sufficient grounds for presuming that Mool Chand -accused committed offence punishable under Section 377 read with Section 511 IPC and Suraj Bhan committed offences punishable under Sections 323, 325 and 506 IPC. They were charged accordingly, to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. To prove the guilt of the accused, the prosecution examined Dr. Sunita Sharma (P.W. -1), Chokh Ram (P.W. -2), Rahul (P.W. -3), Daya Nand (P.W. -4), Chhote Lal (P.W. -5), Mehender Singh, HC (P.W. -6) and Dr. B.B. Aggarwal, (P.W. -7). After the close of the prosecution evidence, the accused were examined by the trial court and their statements were recorded under Section 313 of the Code. All the incriminating circumstances appearing against them in the prosecution evidence were put to them in order to enable them to explain the same. They denied all those circumstances and pleaded their false implication. They were called upon to enter on their defence but they did not produce any evidence in their defence.

(3.) IT has been submitted by the learned Counsel for the Petitioner/accused that the accused is standing his protracted trial from the last many years and is not a previous convict. Against the sentence of imprisonment of three months awarded to him under Section 325 IPC, he has already undergone the sentence of imprisonment for a period of about one month. He prayed that he be released on probation.