Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2012 DIGILAW 1171 (PNJ)

Lakhi v. State of Haryana

2012-09-10

MEHINDER SINGH SULLAR

body2012
JUDGMENT Mehinder Singh Sullar, J. Tersely, the facts & evidence, unfolded during the course of trial, culminating in the commencement, relevant for deciding the instant appeal and emanating from the record, are that, on 25.3.2001, appellant Lakhi was stated to have induced the minor victim (name withheld) to accompany him with an intention that she may be forced to illicit intercourse. He wrongfully confined her in a room of temple and attempted to commit rape. In the background of these allegations and in the wake of complaint of complainant (PW1) Dal Chand, a criminal case was registered against the appellant-convict, vide FIR No.130 dated 25.3.2001, for the commission of offences punishable under sections 366-A, 342 and 376 read with section 511 IPC by the police of Police Station Hodal, District Faridabad. 2. Having completed all the codal formalities, the trial Judge convicted & sentenced the appellant-convict to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of seven years, to pay a fine of ` 3000/- and in default of payment of fine, to further undergo RI for a period of 1¾ years; rigorous imprisonment for a period of six months, to pay a fine of ` 1000/- and in default of payment of fine, to further undergo RI for a period of 45 days and rigorous imprisonment for a period of five years, to pay a fine of ` 2000/- and in default of payment of fine, to further undergo RI for a period of 1¼ years for committing the offences punishable under sections 366-A, 342 and 376 read with section 511 IPC respectively. However, all the sentences were ordered to run concurrently by the trial Court, by means of impugned judgment of conviction dated 7.12.2001 & order of sentence dated 11.12.2001. 3. As the appellant-convict was unable to engage counsel, therefore, he filed the present appeal through jail, to challenge the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence. 4. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, going through the evidence on record with their valuable assistance and after considering the entire matter deeply, to my mind, there is no merit in the instant appeal, as regards the impugned judgment of conviction is concerned. 5. 4. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, going through the evidence on record with their valuable assistance and after considering the entire matter deeply, to my mind, there is no merit in the instant appeal, as regards the impugned judgment of conviction is concerned. 5. Ex facie, the argument of learned counsel that since the evidence brought on record by the prosecution falls short as is required to prove a criminal case, so, the appellant-convict is entitled to acquittal, is not only devoid of merit but misplaced as well. 6. As is evident from the record, that the prosecution, in order to substantiate the charges framed against the appellant, examined PW1 Dal Chand complainant, PW2 Girvar, PW3 prosecutrix. The complainant and victim have duly corroborated the entire prosecution version. PW2 has also supported the prosecution case on all vital counts. PW4 Dr.S.K.Mishra has proved the MLR (Ex.PB), whereas PW5 Ashok Sharma, Headmaster has proved the age of victim. Sequelly, PW7 constable Vinod Kumar and PW8 ASI Tara Chand have testified the police investigation. The site plan was proved by PW6 Constable Manoj Kumar. All the prosecution witnesses were cross-examined at length, but no substantial material could be elicited in their cross examination to dislodge the prosecution version, which is otherwise duly proved by cogent, oral as well as documentary evidence brought on record by the prosecution. The learned counsel for the appellant did not point out any legal infirmity or major contradictions and inherent improbabilities, much less cogent, to discard the reliable and trustworthy evidence of the prosecution. 7. Therefore, if the entire evidence of prosecution is perused and put together, then, to me, the conclusion is inescapable that the prosecution has duly proved the charges and the trial Court has rightly convicted the appellant-convict, in the manner indicated here-in-above. 8. Faced with the situation, learned counsel has fairly acknowledged that he will not be in a position to contest the conviction of the appellant any more, in view of the pointed cogent evidence brought on record by the prosecution. As no other legal infirmity has been pointed out by the learned counsel for the appellant, therefore, the impugned judgment of conviction is hereby maintained in the obtaining circumstances of the case. 9. As no other legal infirmity has been pointed out by the learned counsel for the appellant, therefore, the impugned judgment of conviction is hereby maintained in the obtaining circumstances of the case. 9. Be that as it may, however, the argument of learned counsel that since the appellant is a poor person of 70 years of age and is not a previous convict, so, there is a large scope of reduction in the period of sentence, has considerable force. This factual position is acknowledged by the learned State counsel. 10. Having regard to the rival contentions of learned counsel for parties, to my mind, it would be in the interest and justice would be sub-served if the sentence of imprisonment imposed on the appellant by the trial Court is reduced, inter-alia, on the following grounds:- i) He is a poor person of 70 years of age. ii) All the sentences were ordered to run concurrently by the trial Court and as per custody certificate, the appellant has already undergone the period of his substantive sentence of about two years and eight months, out of the total awarded maximum sentence of imprisonment of seven years. iii) He is a first offender and is not a previous convict. iv) The occurrence in this case is of 25.3.2001 and he has already faced the pangs of protracted trial & appeal for the last about 11½ years. 11. In the light of aforesaid reasons, as there is no merit, therefore, the appeal filed by the appellant is hereby dismissed and the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence of fine imposed on the appellant-convict are maintained. However, taking into consideration the totality of the facts & circumstances, emanating from the record, as discussed here-in-above, the sentence of imprisonment is reduced to already undergone by him. Accordingly, the impugned order of sentence is modified to the extent and in the manner depicted here-in- before. 12. Needless to say that necessary consequences & compliance will naturally follow accordingly.