NISHAN SINGH Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present revision petition has been filed against the judgment dated 5.5.2012 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Tarn Taran dismissing appeal filed by present petitioner against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 26.02.2011 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Patti vide which present petitioner was convicted for the offences punishable under Sections 452, 323, 506 and 342 of Indian Penal Code (for short 'IPC'), and was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year and to pay a fine of Rs. 1000 and in default of payment of fine, to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for seven days for the offence under Section 452 of IPC along with separate sentences for other offences.

(2.) Brief allegations against the petitioner are that on 24.11.2007 complainant was present in her house along with her cousin sister Jaspreet Kaur. It was about 6.00 or 6.30 PM, petitioner-accused Nishan Singh entered in her house and pressed her neck with his thumb and asked the reason as to why she had performed engagement. Jaspreet Kaur tried to raise alarm, however, accused caught hold of Jaspreet Kaur and locked her in a room and thereafter, he gave blows of baseball bat on the person of complainant. In the meantime, Santokh Singh, uncle of complainant reached there and on seeing him, petitioner-accused Nishan Singh ran away.

(3.) It has been contended by learned counsel for the petitioner accused that he does not want to press the present revision petition so far as the judgment of conviction passed by learned trial Court and as affirmed by learned first Appellate Court is concerned. However, he has contended that the offence under Section 452 IPC is punishable with maximum imprisonment of seven years and that offence under Section 323 IPC is punishable with maximum imprisonment of one year and hence, the present petitioner who is not a previous convict, should have been given the benefit of probation under Section 360 Cr.P.C. It is further contended that however, without giving any special reasons as provided under Section 361 Cr.P.C., the said benefit has been denied to the petitioner by both the Courts below. It is further submitted that the petitioner has already undergone five months of the sentence awarded. It is pertinent to reproduce Sections 360 and 361 of Cr.P.C., which reads as under:-