SHEO RAM Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE Petitioner -accused, Sheo Ram, was convicted for the offences under Sections 354 and 451 IPC by Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Loharu, vide judgment dated 3.4.2002 and was sentence as under:

(2.) THE prosecution story, in brief, is that the prosecutrix, PW -1( the name is not being disclosed in this judgment) used to reside with her in -laws in village Pahari, after constructing a house outside the abadi of the village. On 15.3.1997, at about 11 -00 p.m., she had gone to the bed after talking to her mother -in -law, Shanti Devi, PW -4. After some time, the accused criminally tress passed into their house after opening the gate and came inside the chappar where she was lying on the cot. After holding her right hand, he tried to push her on the cot and also tried to touch the private parts of her body. She raised an alarm, which attracted Shanti, PW -4 and her father -in -law the Tek Chand, PW -2, to the spot. The husband of the prosecutrix had gone out side and in order to resolve the dispute, the help of the brotherhood in the village was taken but the same was not settled. Thereafter, on 19.3.1997, she was proceeding to the police station to lodge a report when Mehar Singh, ASI, met her on the way. She made her statement, EX. PA, before that ASI, who after recording his police proceedings, sent the same to the police station and on the basis thereof, formal FIR, Ex. PC, was recorded by Shri Bhagwan Singh ASI, PW -3. Mehar Singh ASI, went to the place of occurrence and after inspecting the same, prepared the rough site plan. He recorded the statements of the witnesses. In the course of investigation, the accused was arrested and challan was put in before the SDJM, who found sufficient grounds for presuming that the accused committed offences punishable under Section 354 and 451 IPC. He was charged accordingly, to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. To prove the guilt of the accused, prosecution examined Geeta, PW -1, Tek Chand, PW -2. Shri Bhagwan ASI, PW -3, Santi, PW -4 and Bhim Singh, Constable PW -5. After the prosecution closed its evidence, the accused was examined and his statement was recorded under Section 313 Code of Criminal Procedure The incriminating circumstances appearing against him in the prosecution evidence were put to him in order to enable him to explain the same. He denied all those circumstances and pleaded his innocence. He stated that false case has been made against him on account of party faction in the village. He was called upon to enter on his defence. He examined Dhani Ram, DW -1, in his defence evidence.

(3.) HAVING failed to assail the conviction of the accused, it has been submitted by his counsel that the accused is standing his trial from the last more than 13 years and has already undergone imprisonment for a period of about 05 months. Both the offences, for which he was convicted, are punishable with imprisonment for a period up to two years. It is not the case of the prosecution that he is a previous convict. He prayed that the benefit of probation be granted to the accused.