Anil Kumar vs State of Haryana

Gurdev Singh, J.—The Petitioner/accused, Anil Kumar, was charged for the offence u/s 354 IPC and was tried by JMIC, Mahendergarh, who convicted him of that offence and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year and to a fine of Rs. 500/- and in default thereof, to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one month. Against that conviction and sentence, the accused preferred an appeal, which was dismissed by the Sessions Judge, Narnaul, vide judgment dated 18.7.2005. The present revision has been preferred against that conviction and sentence.

In this case, the criminal machinery was set in motion and the FIR was registered on the basis of the statement of Saroj, prosecutrix/complainant (P.W. 1). She narrated therein that on 12.11.1998 at about 1.30 p.m., she had gone to flour mill of Kiran for getting the wheat grinded. That Kiran asked her to accompany her to her house for getting the stitching machine. Thereafter, she accompanied her to her house where Anil Kumar-accused, who is her son, was present. After asking her son to give the stitching machine to her, Kiran left that place. She was asked by the accused to herself take the stitching machine from the almirah and when she picked up that machine, the accused with dishonest intention caught hold of her from her back side and tried to outrage her modesty. After getting herself freed from the accused, she came to her house and disclosed this fact to her brother-in-law, Braham Parkash. She also narrated other facts in her statement regarding the receiving of an injury by the accused by a fall on the stone and causing of hurt by him to Kiran and also causing of hurt by datali by Sandeep. However, the accused was never charged for that offence. The case was investigated by Chajju Ram, ASI (P.W. 3), who went to the place of occurrence and after inspecting the same, prepared rough site plan. He recorded the statements of the witnesses and arrested the accused. After completion of the investigation, challan was presented before the JMIC.

I have heard learned Counsel for both the sides.

Learned Counsel for the Petitioner/accused did not assail the findings of conviction recorded by the trial Court and upheld by the appellate Court. He submitted that at the time of the commission of the offence, the accused was 18 years old and has already done his MBA and has undergone some part of the sentence of imprisonment so imposed upon him. He prayed that the benefit of probation be extended to the accused.

That prayer of the accused has been opposed by the learned State Counsel on the ground that he was more than 24 years old at the time of the occurrence and the nature of the offence and the circumstances of the case are such that he is not entitled to such benefit.

Admittedly, the prosecution neither alleged nor proved any previous conviction against the accused. The offence u/s 354 IPC is punishable with two years imprisonment i.e. less than seven years. Therefore, the accused is entitled to the benefit of the provision of Section 360 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and special reasons were required to be recorded for refusing that benefit to him. The trial Court did not record any reason for declining the benefit of probation, though the Sessions Judge did record the reasons for refusing that benefit. The FIR was got registered in the year 1998 and the accused is standing his protracted trial for the last about 12 years. It has not been denied by the learned State Counsel that the accused has already undergone imprisonment for a period of one month and six days. In this case, it is the version of the complainant herself that even the injuries were received by the accused, though, according to her, the same were received by him by a fall on the stone. Keeping in view the circumstances of the present case where the accused has been standing his trial since long and that he has already passed his MBA and is to settle in the life, I think it is proper and expedient to release him on probation instead of sentencing him at once to any punishment.

Accordingly, this revision is partly allowed. The sentence so imposed upon the accused is set aside and he is ordered to be released on probation on his executing personal bond in the sum of Rs. 10,000/- with one surety in the like amount for a period of two years to appear and receive the sentence as and when called upon to do so during that period and to keep peace and be of good behaviour in the meanwhile. The fine, if already deposited, shall be treated as costs of the proceedings. The bonds are to be furnished before the trial Court within three months.

Records of the trial Court be returned forthwith.