JUDGMENT Tarlok Singh Chauhan, J. - This criminal revision petition has been filed against the judgment passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Kullu, H. P. 09. 11. 2006 whereby he affirmed the judgment passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Manali, District Kullu, H. P. on 01. 08. 2005. 2. Brief facts of the case are that the complainant Smt. Dev Sena was under the period of mensuration w. e. f. 9. 5. 2004. As per the custom in the area a lady under such period does not enter in the main house and also the kitchen at least for a period of three days and used to sleep in Khud (cow-shed). Thus on 10. 5. 2004 the complainant as usual went to sleep in the ''Khud'' situated in ground floor of the house after having her meals. Around 10. 00 P. M. her husband came to the house and she heard him talking with other persons near stairs of the house and one of such persons with whom he was talking was recognised by her as Lot Ram, PW-4. The another person with her husband, however, could not be recognised by her. Her husband called her and she told him to go to the upper storey of the house and sleep there and also not to disturb the children and that now she is also sleeping. Thus, thereafter, she also went to her bed in the ''Khud''. It is in the following morning i. e. on 11. 5. 2004 around 3. 00 a. m. someone pushed the door of the Khud which was not bolted from inside and opened it. Someone came inside and started molesting her. She thought that it is her husband, who had come under the influence of liquor and as such she asked as to what happened to him because he is not supposed to touch her when she is mensurating, but of no avail, and as such when she pushed that person she found cap having been worn by him on his head. On realizing that her husband does not wear cap, she switched on the light and found the petitioner sitting on her bed. On realizing that her husband does not wear cap, she switched on the light and found the petitioner sitting on her bed. She tried to detain him in the ''Khud'' by bolting the door, however, unsuccessfully because the petitioner had pulled the door with force and as a result thereof her right hand fingers got injured and the petitioner managed his escape by fleeing away from that place. Around 4. 00 a. m. she informed her husband and brother-in-law (Jeth) Yub Raj, PW-3 qua this incident. They called PW-4 Lot Ram, member Gram Panchayat to the spot. PW-4 visited the spot. The prosecutrix accompanied by her husband and brother-in-law visited police station, Patlikuhal and lodged rapat No. 4 Ext. PW-2/A there. The report was sent to Police Station, Manali where FIR No. 91/2004 under Sections 452, 354 and 323 IPC Ext. PW-5/A was registered against the petitioner. 3. The investigation was conducted by PW-6 Bhim Sen, ASI and after completion thereof, challan was presented in the Court and the petitioner was made to stand trial for the aforesaid offences. The petitioner pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. 4. The prosecution examined six witnesses including doctor and closed its evidence. Whereas, the petitioner on the other hand denied the entire prosecution case as being wrong. 5. The statement of petitioner under Section 313 Cr. P. C. was recorded in which he denied the incriminatory evidence led by the prosecution. He did not choose to lead any evidence in defence. 6. The learned trial Court on considering the evidence on record, convicted the petitioner under Sections 452, 354 and 323 of I. P. C. . 7. In the appeal, learned Sessions Judge affirmed the sentence so passed by the learned trial court. 8. Aggrieved by the judgments rendered by the learned Courts below, the petitioner has filed the instant revision petition. 9. It is vehemently argued by Mr. Anoop Chitkara, learned counsel for the petitioner that the findings recorded by the learned Courts below are perverse and, therefore, deserve to be set-aside and in any case the sentence, as imposed, is harsh and, therefore, a lenient view deserves to be taken in this case. 9. It is vehemently argued by Mr. Anoop Chitkara, learned counsel for the petitioner that the findings recorded by the learned Courts below are perverse and, therefore, deserve to be set-aside and in any case the sentence, as imposed, is harsh and, therefore, a lenient view deserves to be taken in this case. Whereas, the learned Additional Advocate General, would support the impugned judgments by contending that since the petitioner is an accused of a crime against the women and the same has been duly dealt with by utmost sensitivity and, therefore, call for no interference. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the records of the case. 10. However, before I deal with the contentions put-forth by the learned counsel for the petitioner, it would be necessary to delineate the scope and power of this Court while dealing with revision petition of the instant kind. 11. In Amur Chand Agrawal vs. Shanti Bose and another , 1973 AIR(SC) 799, the Hon''ble Supreme Court has held that the revisional jurisdiction should normally be exercised in exceptional cases when there is a glaring defect in the proceedings or there is a manifest error of point of law and consequently there has been a flagrant miscarriage of justice. 12. In State of Orissa vs. Nakula Sahu , 1979 AIR(SC) 663, the Hon''ble Supreme Court after placing reliance upon a large number of its earlier judgments including Akalu Aheer vs. Ramdeo Ram , 1973 AIR(SC) 2145, held that the power, being discretionary, has to be exercised judiciously and not arbitrarily or lightly. The Court held that "judicial discretion, as has often been said, means a discretion which is informed by tradition methodolised by analogy and discipline by system". 13. In Pathumma and another vs. Muhammad , 1986 AIR(SC) 1436, the Hon''ble Apex Court observed that High Court "committed an error in making a re-assessment of the evidence" as in its revisional jurisdiction it was "not justified in substituting its own view for that of the learned Magistrate on a question of fact". 14. 13. In Pathumma and another vs. Muhammad , 1986 AIR(SC) 1436, the Hon''ble Apex Court observed that High Court "committed an error in making a re-assessment of the evidence" as in its revisional jurisdiction it was "not justified in substituting its own view for that of the learned Magistrate on a question of fact". 14. In Bansi Lal and others vs. Laxman Singh , 1986 AIR(SC) 1721, the legal position regarding scope of revisional jurisdiction was summed up by the Hon''ble Supreme Court in the following terms: "It is only in glaring cases of injustice resulting from some violation of fundamental principles of law by the trial court, that the High Court is empowered to set aside the order of the acquittal and direct a re-trial of the acquitted accused. From the very nature of this power it should be exercised sparingly and with great care and caution. The mere circumstance that a finding of fact recorded by the trial court may in the opinion of the High Court be wrong, will not justify the setting aside of the order of acquittal and directing a re-trial of the accused. Even in an appeal, the Appellate Court would not be justified in interfering with an acquittal merely because it was inclined to differ from the findings of fact reached by the trial Court on the appreciation of the evidence. The revisional power of the High Court is much more restricted in its scope. " 15. In Ramu @ Ram Kumar vs. Jagannath , 1994 AIR(SC) 26, Hon''ble Supreme court cautioned the revisional Courts not to lightly exercise the revisional jurisdiction at the behest of a private complainant. 16. In State of Karnataka vs. Appu Balu , 1993 AIR(SC) 1126 (SC), the Hon''ble Supreme Court held that in exercise of the revisional powers, it is not permissible for the Court to reappreciate the evidence. 17. In Ramu alias Ram Kumar and others vs. Jagannath , 1994 AIR(SC) 26, the Hon''ble Supreme Court held as under: "It is well settled that the revisional jurisdiction conferred on the High Court should not be lightly exercised particularly when it was invoked by a private complaint. " 18. 17. In Ramu alias Ram Kumar and others vs. Jagannath , 1994 AIR(SC) 26, the Hon''ble Supreme Court held as under: "It is well settled that the revisional jurisdiction conferred on the High Court should not be lightly exercised particularly when it was invoked by a private complaint. " 18. In Kaptan Singh and others vs. State of M. P. and another , 1997 AIR(SC) 2485 (SC), the Hon''ble Supreme Court considered a large number of its earlier judgments, particularly Chinnaswami vs. State of Andhra Pradesh , 1962 AIR(SC) 1788 ; Mahendra Pratap vs. Sarju Singh , 1968 AIR(SC) 707; P. N. G. Raju vs. B. P. Appadu , 1975 AIR(SC) 1854, and Ayodhya vs. Ram Sumer Singh , 1981 AIR(SC) 1415, and held that revisional power can be exercised only when "there exists a manifest illegality in the order or there is a grave miscarriage of justice". 19. In State of Kerala vs. Puttumana Illath Jathavedan Namboodiri , 1999 2 SCC 452 , the Hon''ble Supreme Court held as under: "In Its revisional jurisdiction, the High Court can call for and examine the record of any proceedings for the purpose of satisfying itself as to the correctness, legality or propriety of any finding, sentence or order. In other words, the jurisdiction is one of Supervisory Jurisdiction exercised by the High Court for correcting miscarriage of justice. But the said revisional power cannot be equated with the power of an Appellate Court nor can it be treated even as a second Appellate Jurisdiction. Ordinarily, therefore, it would not be appropriate for the High Court to reappreciate the evidence and come to its own conclusion on the same when the evidence has already been appreciated by the Magistrate as well as the Sessions Judge in appeal, unless any glaring feature is brought to the notice of the High Court which would otherwise tantamount to gross miscarriage of justice. " 20. In State of A. P. vs. Rajagopala Rao , 2000 10 SCC 338 , the Hon''ble Supreme Court held as under: "The High Court in exercise of its revisional power has upset the concurrent findings of the Courts below without in any way considering the evidence on the record and without indicating as to in what manner the courts below had erred in coming to the conclusion which they had arrived at. The judgment of the High Court contains no reasons whatsoever which would indicate as to why the revision filed by the respondent was allowed. In a sense, it is a non-speaking judgment. " 21. Bearing in mind the aforesaid exposition of law and restricted scope of revisional jurisdiction, I have proceeded to analyze in brief the evidence available on record. 22. The material witness in this case is the victim herself, who has stepped into the witness box as PW-1. A close scrutiny of her testimony reveals that the complainant was mensurating w. e. f. 9. 5. 2004 and as per the custom prevalent in the area, she was slept in the cow-shed (Khud). On 10. 5. 2004 while she was sleeping, then at about 10. 00 p. m. she found that her husband had returned to the house alongwith Ward Panch Lot Ram. Husband also wanted to sleep, however, in the morning at around 3. 00 A. M. , the petitioner entered in the Khud and came to her bed. He then pressed her breasts. The complainant thought that it was her husband and as such, started abusing him. However, when she pushed the person away, his head came into her contact and she found that the person was wearing a cap. On this, she realized that it was not her husband as he never wore a cap. Then she switched on the lights and noticed the petitioner sitting on her bed. He being able to conveniently identified by her, when the complainant tried to close the door from outside, the petitioner pulled the same with force and in this process two fingers of her hand got injured. On raising an alarm by her, her husband and brother-in-law woke up and they went to call for Lot Ram. The complainant thereafter lodged report Ext. PW-2/A with the police. She was got medically examined vide MLC Ext. PW-1/A and X-ray of her finger was also conducted. 23. On being cross-examined, the complainant stated that her husband Chaman Lal would drink occasionally and denied that he occasionally wears a cap. She further stated that her husband had gone to the house of the petitioner about ten years ago and that the petitioner had two sisters namely Shanta and Kanta. However, she denied that her husband had outraged their modesty. She further stated that her husband had gone to the house of the petitioner about ten years ago and that the petitioner had two sisters namely Shanta and Kanta. However, she denied that her husband had outraged their modesty. She admitted that even today the people of lower castes do not go to the house of the people belonging to upper castes. She admitted that she did not tell anything in this behalf to Tule Ram and Amar Chand nor lodged complaint in the Gram Panchayat. She had gone to the Police Station alongwith her brother-in-law Yub Raj. She denied that neither the petitioner entered in the Khud nor outraged her modesty. It was also denied that the cap Ex. P-1 was that of her husband and the petitioner was being falsely implicated. 24. The other material witness in this case is Yub Raj, brother-in-law of the prosecutrix, who has corroborated the entire prosecution story from the stage when the complainant raised an alarm and he woke up. This witness further stated that he had brought PW-4 Lot Ram, who after visiting the spot had gone to the house of the petitioner, however, he was not present there. He had accompanied the complainant to Police Post, Patlikuhal where rapat Ext. PW-2/A was lodged. He further stated that the complainant was medically examined and cap Ex. P-1 was also taken into possession. He also identified the cap to be that of the petitioner as according to him, he had been wearing the same on each and every day. This witness was cross-examined in length, however, nothing material could be elicited therefrom. The witness was cross-examined regarding the distance between the house and further it was suggested that the husband of the complainant had gone to the house of the petitioner under the influence of liquor about 2-3 years ago and had then outraged the modesty of his sisters. He further stated that his brother does not wear a cap. Rests of the suggestions were denied by this witness. 25. Pw-4 Lot Ram is the Ward Panch, who corroborated the prosecution case and stated that PW-3 Yub Raj and his younger brother Chuni Lal had come to him at or around 5. He further stated that his brother does not wear a cap. Rests of the suggestions were denied by this witness. 25. Pw-4 Lot Ram is the Ward Panch, who corroborated the prosecution case and stated that PW-3 Yub Raj and his younger brother Chuni Lal had come to him at or around 5. 00 a. m. and told him that during the night the petitioner had entered into the room of the complainant and that though she had to detain him inside the room, however, when she was bolting the door her hand pressed therewith and resulted into injuries on her fingers. He had inspected the spot and found lying the cap there. Thereafter, they went to Police Post, Patlikuhal and lodged report there. He further stated that the cap Ex. P-1 was taken into possession by the police vide recovery memo Ext. PW-2/B to which he is a signatory. This witness was cross-examined at length, but again nothing adverse could be elicited from him. He denied that the cap was not that of the petitioner and further stated that the husband of the complainant never wears/wore cap. He further denied that he was made to sign on blank papers by the police. 26. From the testimonies as have been set-out above, it would be abundantly clear that all the ingredients of commission of offences punishable under Sections 452, 354 and 323 IPC have been proved beyond reasonable doubt and it was the petitioner, who had entered the Khud where the complainant was sleeping with an intention to outrage her modesty. Not only this, he came to her bed and pressed her breasts. Further it is proved on record that the complainant received injuries on her two fingers of right hand during the process of bolting the door from outside with a view to detain the petitioner inside the room and thus has committed commission of an offence under Section 323 IPC. 27. At this stage, the learned counsel for the petitioner would vehemently argue that the statements of the witnesses, referred to above, cannot be looked into as these all witnesses are related and interested witnesses. However, I am afraid that such contention is totally misplaced as a natural witness or the only possible eye witness cannot always be termed as ''interested witness''. However, I am afraid that such contention is totally misplaced as a natural witness or the only possible eye witness cannot always be termed as ''interested witness''. It is more than settled that evidence of an interested witness is not to be equated with that of a tainted witness or that of an approver so as to require corroboration as a matter of necessity. The evidence of interested witnesses, even if it is assumed, does not suffer from any infirmity as such, but the Courts require as a rule of prudence, not as a rule of law, that the evidence of such witnesses should be scrutinized with a little care. Once the approach is made and the Court is satisfied that the evidence of the interested witnesses has a ring of truth, such evidence can be relied upon even without corroboration. 28. I find the evidence of the witnesses, referred to above, to be credible notwithstanding that they were related to the complainant. Not only this, the evidence so led by them has been discussed threadbare and appreciated by the learned Courts below and even otherwise there is no glaring feature brought to the notice of this Court which otherwise tantamounts to gross miscarriage of justice so as to compel this Court to re-appreciate the evidence. 29. Having said so, I really do not find any merit so as to call for any interference in this revision petition. However, learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner is aged about 45 years and has settled in the village and he is an agriculturist and would be stigmatized in case he is sentenced. 30. Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act empowers the Court to release the convict on entering into a bond, with or without sureties, on probation when he is found guilty of committing any offences not punishable with death or imprisonment for life. Relevant portion of Section 4 is reproduced as under:- "4. Power of court to release certain offenders on probation of good conduct. Relevant portion of Section 4 is reproduced as under:- "4. Power of court to release certain offenders on probation of good conduct. -(1) When any person is found guilty of having committed an offence not punishable with death or imprisonment for life and the court by which the person is found guilty is of opinion that, having regard to the circumstances of the case including the nature of the offence and the character of the offender, it is expedient to release him on probation of good conduct, then, notwithstanding anything contained in any other law for the time being in force, the court may instead of sentencing him at once to any punishment direct that he be released on his entering into a bond, with or without sureties, to appear and receive sentence when called upon during such period, not exceeding three years, as the court may direct, and in the meantime to keep the peace and be of good behavior; Provided that the court shall not direct such release of an offender unless it is satisfied that the offender or his surety, if any, has a fixed place of abode or regular occupation in the place over which the court exercises jurisdiction or in which the offender is likely to live during the period for which he enters into the bond. " 31. For exercising the power which is discretionary, the Court has to consider various circumstances of the case, like the nature of the offence and the character of the offender. While considering the nature of the offence, the court must take realistic view of the gravity of the offence, the impact which the offence had on the victim, the benefit available to the accused under this provision is subject to the limitation embodied in the provision as is evident from the use of the word "may" which clearly indicates that the discretion vested with the courts whether to release the offender in exercise of the power under Sections 3 or 4 of the Act having regard to the nature of the offence and character of the offender and over all the circumstances of the case. The powers under Section 4 of the Act vest with the court when any person is found guilty of the offence committed not punishable with death or imprisonment for life. The powers under Section 4 of the Act vest with the court when any person is found guilty of the offence committed not punishable with death or imprisonment for life. This power can be exercised by the courts while finding the person guilty and if the courts come to a conclusion by considering the circumstances of the case including the nature of the offence and the character of the offender, benefit should be given to the accused. Obviously, this power is available and can be exercised by the court even at the appellate stage. 32. Having regard to the rival contentions of the learned counsel for the parties, and having gone through the circumstances emanating from the record and after in depth consideration of the entire matter, I find no legal impediment for considering the case of the petitioner for grant of probation, particularly, in light of the fact that the incident in this case (i) pertains to the year 2004; (ii) the petitioner has already faced the pangs and suffered agony of protracted trial and appeal/revision for the last more than 14 years; (iii) he was a young man of 31 years at the time of occurrence. 33. Even the modern trend of penology also leads to the reformation of the offender so as to make him useful citizen of the society. No useful purpose is otherwise going to be achieved by again sending the petitioner to jail. 34. Accordingly, let the Probation Officer of the area concerned where the accused permanently resides place before this Court his report qua the antecedents of the petitioner on or before next date of hearing. List on 17. 04. 2018.