HAMIR SINGH Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS revision petition has been filed against the judgment and order dated 6.2.2009 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sangrur whereby, the appeal of the petitioner against the judgment and order dated 30.7.2008 passed by the learned Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Dhuri has been dismissed, however, the sentence of imprisonment for the offences under Sections 451 and 354 Indian Penal Code ("IPC" - for short) has been reduced from one year to six months.

(2.) THE FIR in the case was recorded on the basis of statement made by Nachattar Kaur complainant to ASI Joginder Singh at the Bus-Stand, Kakarwal on 12.10.2005 at 8.00 p.m. It was stated by Nachattar Kaur - complainant that she was resident of village Punnawal. On 9.10.2005, she along with her daughter-in-law Sarabjit Kaur were sleeping in the open courtyard of their house on separate cots. At about 11.00 p.m. Hamir Singh (petitioner) who is their neighbour came near the cot of the complainant and with an intention to outrage her modesty committed assault. He threatened the complainant not to raise any noise. In the meantime, Sarabjit Kaur daughter-in-law of the complainant switched on light and the petitioner was recognized. Bhola Singh husband of the complainant came there and then the petitioner after pushing the complainant fled away from there. Information regarding this was given to the Panchayat, but no compromise could be effected. On the basis of the statement made by Nachattar Kaur complainant, case for the commission of offences under Sections 451 and 354 Indian Penal Code ("IPC" - for short) was registered. The case was investigated and thereafter, charge report (challan) was filed by the Police. The prosecution in order to prove its case examined Nachattar Kaur complainant as PW1, Sarabjit Kaur daughter-in-law of the complainant as PW2 and ASI Joginder Singh as PW3. The petitioner in his statement under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure ("CrPC" - for short) pleaded innocence and false implication. It was stated by the petitioner that he had been implicated due to party faction in the Panchayat elections. The petitioner in his defence examined Mohinder Singh, Sarpanch as DW1 and Gurmail Singh as DW2. The learned trial Court considered the question whether on 9.10.2005 at about 11.00 p.m., the petitioner committed house trespass by entering the house of Nachattar Kaur complainant and used criminal force with an intention to outrage her modesty. After considering the evidence and material on record, the petitioner was held guilty for the offences under Sections 451 and 354 IPC. He was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year each for both the offences. Besides, to pay a fine of Rs. 300/- and Rs. 200/- for both the offences and in default of payment of fine, to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for fifteen days. Both the sentences of imprisonment were, however, ordered to run concurrently. The petitioner aggrieved by the order of the Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Dhuri preferred an appeal and the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sangrur vide his impugned order has reduced the sentence of imprisonment to six months for the offences under Sections 451 and 354 IPC. The sentence of fine awarded by the trial Court was maintained.

(3.) IN response, learned counsel for the State has submitted that keeping in view the nature of allegations and the facts and circumstances of the case which have been held to be duly proved by both the Courts below, the petitioner is not entitled to the benefit of probation.