ASHOK KUMAR Vs. STATE OF H.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE accused has filed the present petition under Section 397 Cr.P.C., assailing the judgement dated 31.5.2006 passed by the Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Nadaun, District Hamirpur, H.P. in Criminal Case No. 143-I-2004/29-II-2005 titled as State vs. Ashok Kumar, in terms of which he stands convicted for having committed offences punishable under Sections 451, 354, 506, 323 IPC, as affirmed by the learned Sessions Judge, Hamirpur, Distt. Hamirpur in terms of its judgement dated 29th July, 2006 passed in Criminal Appeal No. 9 of 2006 titled as Ashok Kumar vs. State of H.P. In terms of the aforesaid judgements, the accused is to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of six months for having committed offences punishable under Sections 451, 354 and 506 IPC with fine of Rs.500/- each and also to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of two months for having committed an offence punishable under Section 323 IPC and pay fine of Rs.500/-.

(2.) IN short the prosecution case is that on 5.11.2004, accused trespassed into the house of the prosecutrix (PW-1), caught hold of her right arm and tried to molest her. Prosecutrix cried for help. Her relations Pradeep Kumar (PW-3) and Kusum Lata (PW-4) came and rescued her from the clutches of the accused. Matter was reported to the police and F.I.R No. 198/04 dated 5.11.2004 Ext.PW-6/A was registered at Police Station Nadaun under Sections 454, 354, 323 IPC. Investigation was completed by the police and challan presented in the Court for trial. Prosecution examined as many as five witnesses in support of its case. Statement of the accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C. was recorded and opportunity to lead evidence was afforded to him, which he did not avail. In terms of the aforesaid judgements, the accused stands convicted and sentenced.

(3.) RECORD reveals that petitioner has remained behind bars for On 30th July, 2012 this Court called for the more than 13 days. report of the Probation Officer under the Probation Act. The report as placed on record reveals that petitioner aged 35 years is physically handicapped by 60%. He has maintained good conduct since the occurrence of the incident. No doubt, the nature of offence is grave but then petitioner has reformed himself. With respect to similar offence, the coordinate Bench of this Court in Devinder Kumar (supra) granted the benefit of the Probation Act. In fact, I find that in the present case petitioner is better placed. He has his two aged parents. He is bachelor and due to his physical disability cannot get married. He is doing petty business for earning his livelihood. He has maintained good conduct and his neighbourer has shown satisfaction about his character and behaviour. This is his first offence. Apparently, he has not violated any law thereafter. Even the Probation Officer has shown satisfaction of his behaviour.