Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2006 DIGILAW 3042 (PNJ)

Roshan Lal v. State Of Haryana

2006-07-28

T.P.S.MANN

body2006
Judgment T.P.S.Mann, J. 1. By way of the present revision, Roshan Lal petitioner has challenged his conviction under Section 354 IPC and sentence of RI for one year and fine of Rs. 1,000/-. In default of payment of fine, he was directed to undergo further RI for a period of one month. The judgment of conviction and sentence rendered by the Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Hisar on 17.9.2002, was upheld by Additional Sessions Judge, Hisar on 13.6.2006. 2. At the time of the preliminary hearing of the revision, notice of motion was issued to Advocate General, Haryana regarding the question as to whether the petitioner can be extended the benefit of probation or not. 3. The facts of the case are that on 15.1.2001 at about 5.30 a.m. Sunita PW- 3, aged 20 years and married in village Jhajhanwala and had come to meet her father and mother in village Dhani Garan, went to a plot to answer the call of nature. When she opened the door of the toilet, she saw Roshan Lal petitioner standing there. The moment she opened the door, the petitioner placed his foot over her foot and held her by his hands. He tried to drag her in the toilet, besides making an attempt to rape her. Sunita shouted, which attracted her brother Satbir and her father Hanuman. Both of them caught hold of the petitioner in the plot and took him to their house. On the statement made by aforementioned Sunita, the case was registered on the same day under Section 354 IPC against the petitioner. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the petitioner was young person of 20/21 years of age at the time of the alleged occurrence and sole bread earner for his family. Besides, he was a first time offender and therefore, he be released on probation instead of keeping him behind bars for serving out the sentence. Reliance has also been placed on Parkash v. State of Haryana, 1986(1) RCR(Crl.) 94; Rajesh alias Pappu v. State of Haryana, 1996(1) RCR(Crl.) 394 and Bijender v. State of Haryana, 1996(1) RCR(Crl.) 192 in contending that it was a fit case for the extension of benefit of probation to the petitioner. 5. Reliance has also been placed on Parkash v. State of Haryana, 1986(1) RCR(Crl.) 94; Rajesh alias Pappu v. State of Haryana, 1996(1) RCR(Crl.) 394 and Bijender v. State of Haryana, 1996(1) RCR(Crl.) 192 in contending that it was a fit case for the extension of benefit of probation to the petitioner. 5. Learned counsel for the State has opposed the prayer by arguing that the petitioner outraged the modesty of Sunita PW-3, when she went to answer the call of nature and he made an attempt to commit rape. However, when she raised an alarm, her brother and father were attracted, who apprehended the petitioner at the spot. It was prayed that the petitioner did not deserve to be released on probation. 6. I have gone through the facts of the present case and the aforementioned judgments. Though there is no legal bar in granting the benefit of probation to the petitioner as he was 20/21 years of age and a sole bread earner for his family besides being a first offender, yet the facts and circumstances of the case also cannot be lost sight of. The petitioner here tried to outage the modesty of Sunita prosecutrix. It was around 5.30 a.m. on a wintry morning that the prosecutrix went to use the toilet and at that time the petitioner was standing there. As soon as the prosecutrix opened the door, the petitioner placed his foot over her foot and held her by his hands. He tried to drag her into the toilet so as to commit rape but failed in his attempt as in the meantime an alarm was raised by the prosecutrix, which attracted her brother and father to the spot. Moreover, the incidents regarding sexual assault are on the increase. Such like incidents do not affect the victim physically but psychologically also. Extending the benefit of probation to such type of persons would defeat the purpose of punishment which ought to be given to the persons like the present petitioner. 7. One thing can, however, be kept in mind that the occurrence had taken place in January 2001. The petitioner has faced the agony of the trial and the appeal thereafter for a period of more than five years. Ends of justice would be amply met by reducing the sentence of the imprisonment of the petitioner to RI for six months under Section 354 IPC. The petitioner has faced the agony of the trial and the appeal thereafter for a period of more than five years. Ends of justice would be amply met by reducing the sentence of the imprisonment of the petitioner to RI for six months under Section 354 IPC. The sentence of fine along with its default clause does not call for any interference. 8. Resultantly, the revision is disposed of by maintaining the conviction of the petitioner under Section 354 IPC but reducing his sentence of imprisonment from RI for one year to RI for six months. However, the sentence of fine along with its default clause is maintained.