Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2010 DIGILAW 2994 (PNJ)

Rohtash v. State Of Haryana

2010-11-09

M.JEYAPAUL

body2010
Judgment M.Jeyapaul, J. 1. The sole accused, who was convicted for an offence under Section 354 of the Indian Penal Code and was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year and to pay a fine of Rs. 200/- and in default to undergo further a period of 15 days, has preferred the present appeal. 2. Though the accused-appellant was charged under Sections 3 and 4 of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, the trial Court has relieved the accused-appellant from the same. But the accused-appellant was convicted only for an offence under Section 354 of the Indian Penal Code. 3. It is the case of the prosecution that on 23.08.1997 at about 6.00 AM the prosecutrix was caught hold by the accused when she was tying the string of her Salwar after easing herself. Only on the intervention of her aunt, the accused fled away from the scene of occurrence. 4. On the side of the prosecution, the prosecutrix was examined as PW-2 and her aunt was examined as PW-3. They have spoken to the fact that the accused having caught hold the prosecutrix, took her into his grip when she was tying the string of her Salwar. He ran away from the scene of occurrence on hearing the alarm raised by the prosecutrix and also on noticing the presence of PW-3. 5. The learned Counsel appearing for the appellant would submit that the appellant may be ordered to be released on probation of good conduct as he was the first offender. It is his further submission that the appellant has attained the age of 40 years. He has also got grown up children. He also drew the attention of the Court to the nature of charge against the appellant. The appellant had spent 18 days in jail in connection with this criminal case. Therefore, he would submit that it is a fit case where the Court will have to exercise its discretion to release the appellant on probation. 6. In contrast the learned Senior Government Pleader appearing for the State would oppose the plea for releasing the appellant on probation on the ground that the appellant was also charged for an offence under Sections 3 and 4 of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. 6. In contrast the learned Senior Government Pleader appearing for the State would oppose the plea for releasing the appellant on probation on the ground that the appellant was also charged for an offence under Sections 3 and 4 of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. Therefore leniency cannot be shown in the matter of sentence as sought for by the appellant, it is submitted. 7. I record the fact that the appellant though challenged the very verdict of the judgment passed by the trial Court convicting him under Section 354 of the Indian Penal Code and sentencing him to one rigorous imprisonment, the appellant has chosen to plead for releasing him on probation. In other words, no submission was made challenging the conviction recorded by the trial Court. Therefore, no necessity has arisen for this Court to go into the materials on record, leading to the conviction of the accused under Section 354 of the Indian Penal Code. 8. The point that arises for consideration is whether the appellant could be released on probation. 9. The fact remains that the appellant had simply took the prosecutrix into his grip. Immediately after the alarm was raised by the prosecutrix and also after noticing the presence of her aunt, the accused fled away from the scene of occurrence. The appellant was 27 years of age at the time when the occurrence occurred. It is submitted that the appellant has now attained 40 years of age. He has also got grown up children, it is submitted. The appellant has been in jail for about 18 days in connection with this criminal case. If the appellant is released on probation after obtaining an undertaking from him to keep good conduct for a period of one year, the interest of justice would be observed. 10. In view of the above, the appeal, is partly accepted. The judgment of conviction, recorded by the trial Court, is maintained. The order of sentence is set aside and instead the appellant is ordered to be released on probation of good conduct for a period of one year, on his furnishing bail bonds in the sum of Rs. 20,000/- with one surety in the like amount to appear and receive sentence when called upon during the period of undertaking not to commit such offence. 11. 20,000/- with one surety in the like amount to appear and receive sentence when called upon during the period of undertaking not to commit such offence. 11. The probation bonds shall be furnished within a period of 1 month before the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bhiwani. In case, the appellant failed to submit the probation bonds referred to above within the stipulated period the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bhiwani shall proceed further against him,in accordance with the provisions of law.