Bijender vs State of Haryana

Sat Pal, J.

This petition is directed against the judgment dated 12th December, 1992 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate I Class, Gurgaon and judgment dated 20th July, 1995 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Gurgaon. The learned trial court vide his judgment dated 12th September, 1992 had convicted the petitioner under section 354 of the Indian Penal Code (in short ''the Code'') and sentenced the petitioner to undergo RI for two years and imposed fine of Rs. 5000/ out of which Rs. 4500/ is to be paid to the complainant Maya Devi in the form of compensation. The appeal filed by the petitioner against the said judgment was dismissed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Gurgaon vide judgment dated 20th July, 1995, but the sentence awarded to the petitioner was reduced from RI for two years to RI for a period of one year.

Notice of this petition was issued to the Advocate General, Haryana on 28th July, 1995 but the notice was limited on the quantum of sentence only.

The learned counsel for the petitioner seeks permission of the court to bring on record affidavit of the father of the petitioner alongwith annexures in support of his submission that the petitioner was below 21 years of age on the date of the occurrence. Permission is granted and the petitioner is permitted to bring on record the aforesaid documents.

Mr. Yadav appearing on behalf of the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that at the relevant time, the petitioner was below the age of 21 years and in support of this submission he refers to the affidavit and the annexures to the said affidavit filed in Court today. The learned counsel further submits that the petitioner has recently been married and has been employed in Faridabad Complex. He also submits that the petitioner has not been convicted earlier and has been facing trial for the last about 51/2 years. He, therefore, contended that the petitioner be given concession under the provisions of the Probation of Offenders Act. In support of his submission, the learned counsel placed reliance on the judgment of this Court reported in Bhag Singh v. State of Punjab, 1976 Chandigarh Law Reporter 162.

The learned AAG, Haryana, however, submitted that the case of the petitioner is distinguishable from the facts of the case in Bhag Singh (supra) as in the present case, the petitioner is also alleged to have broken the string of salwar of the prosecutrix.

I have given my thoughtful consideration to the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties and have perused the record.

There is no finding by the Courts below that the petitioner was below the age of 21 years except that it has been mentioned in the judgment of the first appellate court that the learned counsel for the petitioner had argued that the petitioner was below the age of 21 years on the date of the occurrence. But keeping in view the special facts of the case namely that the petitioner has been facing trial for a period of 51/2 years, he is not a previous convict, he has been recently married and has been employed in an undertaking of the Government of Haryana, I am of the view that this is a fit case for granting the concession under the provisions of the Probation of Offenders Act. For the reasons recorded hereinabove the conviction of the petitioner is maintained but sentence of the petitioner is set aside and it is directed that he be released on probation on his entering into bond in the sum of Rs. 20,000/ with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial court and to appear and receive sentence when called upon during the period of two years and in the meantime to keep peace and be of good behaviour. He is further directed to pay a sum of Rs. 5000/ to the complainant. The revision petition is thus partly allowed as indicated hereinabove.