Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2008 DIGILAW 1437 (PNJ)

Pohap Singh v. State Of Haryana

2008-08-22

K.C.PURI

body2008
Judgment K.C.Puri, J. 1. This is an appeal directed by appellant-Pohap Singh s/o Ramji Lal, against the judgment dated 27/29.4.1998 passed by Sh. M.P. Mehndiratta, Judge, Special Court, Gurgaon, vide which the accused has been convicted under Section 3 (i)(xi) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (hereinafter to be mentioned as "the SCST Act"). 2. The prosecution case is that Smt. Ramesh Devi prosecutrix, as well as, accused Pohap Singh, are residents of village Bapas, Police Station Pataudi, District Gurgaon. Prosecutrix is a Harijan `Chamar by caste, whereas the accused is `Ahir. On 2.3.1995 at about 2.00 P.M. the prosecutrix was cutting green fodder in the fields of Amar Singh. The accused arrived and made an advance towards her. He then caught her from her breast and started undressing himself. She raised an alarm. On hearing the same Devinder Singh s/o Gajraj and Umrao s/o Sardara, who are also the residents of village Bapas arrived there. On seeing them, the accused fled away. 3. After investigation, challan was presented against the accused. The accused was charged under Section 354 IPC read with Section 3 of the SCST Act, to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. 4. The prosecution in order to bring home the guilt of the accused, examined PW-1 Smt. Ramesh Devi prosecutrix, PW-2 Bir Singh Constable, PW-3 Gobind Ram, HC, PW-4 Devinder, PW-5 Kanihya Lal SI and closed its evidence. 5. After closure of the prosecution evidence, the accused was examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C. He denied the allegations levelled against him and pleaded innocence. He has stated that the case is false and no such occurrence had taken place. He has been implicated in this case because he had asked the prosecutrix not to trespass in his field and had prevented her from cutting the fodder about 20 days prior to the date of occurrence. 6. Learned trial Court after appraisal of the evidence on the file, found the accused guilty under Section 3 (1)(xi) of the SCST Act and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year and to pay a fine of Rs. 500/-. In default of payment of fine, he was to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for a period of two 7. 500/-. In default of payment of fine, he was to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for a period of two 7. Learned counsel for the appellant has not challenged the conviction but has prayed for reduction of sentence to the already undergone. It is submitted that as per record the accused was 65 years old at the time of trial and now he is more than 75 years. There is no other case pending against him. Prayer has been made for reduction in sentence. The said prayer has been opposed by the learned State counsel. 8. Since this is the first appeal, so, I have to re-appraise the evidence on the file. From the testimony of prosecutrix coupled with testimony of PW-4 Devinder, the ingredients of offence under Section 3 (1)(xi) of the SCST Act, are clearly made out. So, the learned trial Court has rightly convicted the accused. Therefore, his conviction is affirmed. 9. Now, reverting to the quantum of sentence, the accused has been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year and to pay a fine of Rs. 500/-. From the record, it is revealed that occurrence relates to the year 1995 and the accused is more than 75 years. It would not be in consonance of justice to send him in custody in the evening of his life. 10. Consequently, sentence of the accused stands reduced to the period already undergone but sentence of fine is enhanced to Rs. 10,000/-. In default of payment of fine, the accused shall undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months. The said amount of fine shall be deposited in the trial Court within two months from today. That amount, on realisation, shall be paid to the prosecutrix under Section (sic) amount, on realisation, shall be paid to the prosecutrix under section 357 Cr.P.C. The appeal stands disposed of with the above said modification. A copy of the judgment be sent to the trial Court for strict compliance.