Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 1397 (PNJ)

SATISH v. STATE OF HARYANA

2014-10-07

RAJ RAHUL GARG

body2014
JUDGMENT : Raj Rahul Garg, J. This criminal appeal has been filed by Satish son of Hoshiar Singh against the judgment of conviction dated 31.7.2003 and order of sentence dated 2.8.2003 rendered by Additional Sessions Judge, Bhiwani whereby the appellant was convicted under section 354 of IPC and sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for one year besides fine of Rs. 1,000/- and in default to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of three months. 2. Initially, the FIR under Sections 354, 376, 323, 511 IPC and Section 3 of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (for short, 'the Act') was registered. The charges under Section 376/511 IPC and section 3 of the Act were framed. On appraisal of evidence, the trial Court held that the prosecution has not been able to prove the charges under Sections 376/511 IPC and Section 3 of the Act against the appellant. However, the appellant was held guilty under Section 354 IPC. 3. At the very outset, learned counsel appearing for the appellant submits that he does not wish to contest the appeal on merits and he wants to argue the case only with regard to the quantum of sentence. 4. I have given my thoughtful consideration to the arguments of learned counsel for the parties and have also gone through the records of the case. 5. Since learned counsel for the appellant did not choose to contest the appeal on merits, the judgment of conviction recorded by the trial Court is upheld. 6. On the quantum of sentence, learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the appellant was 25 years of age on the date of commission of offence. He further submitted that since the offence was committed more than 14 years ago in the year 2000 and during this long period the appellant has gone through the ordeal of a protracted criminal trial. The appellant is first offender and only son of his parents and has four sisters to support. By now, the appellant must have also got married and having his own family. The appellant had spent 26 days in jail. The appellant is first offender and only son of his parents and has four sisters to support. By now, the appellant must have also got married and having his own family. The appellant had spent 26 days in jail. Reliance has been placed on judgments rendered in Parbhu Dayal v. State of Haryana 1999 (1) RCR (Criminal) 428, Bijender v. State of Haryana 1996 (1) RCR (Criminal) 192, Hamir Singh v. State of Punjab 2009 (3) RCR (Criminal 64, Mann Singh v. State of Haryana 2003 (1) RCR (Criminal) 144, Rohtash v. State of Haryana 2011 (1) RCR (Criminal) 231, Manju (Mst.) v. State of Rajasthan and Anr. 2009 (4) RLW 3097, Kanwar Pal Singh Gill v. State (Admn., UT Chandigarh) Through Secy. And anr. 2005 (3) RCR (Criminal) 772, Mulakh Raj v. The State of Haryana 1991 (3) RCR (Criminal) 180 and Umeshwari v. State of Punjab 2014 (1) Law Herald 789 to argue that the appellant deserves lenient view in the matter of sentence. 7. Learned counsel appearing for the State submitted that as per custody certificate the appellant has undergone 26 days actual imprisonment. He also submitted that since the appellant tried to outrage the modesty of woman, he does not deserve any leniency in the matter of sentence. 8. The appellant was 25 years of age on the date of commission of offence. He has gone through the ordeal of a protracted trial for about 14 years. He is first offender and only son of his parents and has four sisters to support. By now, the appellant must have also got married and having his own Criminal Appeal No.S-1474-SB of 2003 family. The appellant has undergone 26 days actual imprisonment. 9. In view of the aforesaid discussion, I am of the considered view that the ends of justice would be met, in case the sentence of the appellant is reduced to the period of 26 days already undergone. So is ordered accordingly. 10. Accordingly, the appeal is partly accepted. The judgment of conviction recorded by trial Court is upheld and the order of sentence is modified to the extent that the sentence is reduced to the period already undergone.