Satpal alias Satta vs State of Haryana

M.L. Singhal, J.

The prosecution case in brief is that Kamlesh (prosecutrix) was studying in 5th class on 10.1.1993. Her parents had gone to meet her Bua named Guddi who was suffering from fever. She was alone in the house at night. Her younger sister aged 2 years was also there. At about 10 P.M., Satpal accused resident of Munak who was running a shop at Bus Stand Munak in electric goods and whom she had known earlier came in their house, after unbolting the door. He was under the influence of liquor. He asked her as to where her parents had gone. She replied that they had gone to see her Bua. He sat near her cot and placed his hand on her shoulder and started rolling his hand on her shoulder. She asked Satpal not to touch her. He did not agree. He gave a tooth bite on her left cheek. She raised hue and cry which attracted Suraj Bhan who reached the spot. Accused ran away. In the meantime, her parents also came. She narrated the entire version to them. First of all her parents took the matter to the Biradari. Biradari could not provide them redress. Eventually, case FIR No. 11 was registered on 11.1.1993 under sections 354/451/323 IPC at Police Station Guraunda. After investigation, the accused was challaned under sections 354/451/323 IPC. Accused was charged under section 354/451/323 IPC. He pleaded not guilty to the charge and claimed trial.

On the conclusion of the trial, Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Karnal found the charge proved against the accused. He convicted him thereunder vide order dated 10.6.1997. Vide order of the even date, he sentenced him to undergo simple imprisonment for one year and to pay fine of Rs. 2000/. In default of payment of fine to undergo simple imprisonment for four months under section 451 IPC. He sentenced him to undergo simple imprisonment for six months under section 323 IPC. He sentenced him to undergo simple imprisonment for 11/2 years under section 354 IPC. He ordered the sentences to run concurrently. He ordered that amount of fine if recovered shall be paid to Kamlesh as compensation.

He want in appeal to the court of Sessions against the order of the Magistrate dated 10.6.1997 convicting and sentencing him. Additional Sessions Judge, Karnal found no merit in the appeal and he dismissed the appeal vide order dated 12.9.1998. He has knocked the door of this court through this Criminal Revision whereby he has challenged the dismissal of his appeal by the learned Additional Sessions Judge against the order of conviction and sentence passed upon him by the learned Magistrate.

I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Assistant Advocate General, Haryana and have gone through the record. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that there is no corroboration to the statement of Kamlesh (prosecutrix) and it would not be safe to maintain the conviction and sentence passed upon the accused by the learned courts below on her uncorroborated testimony. Suffice it to say, her statement has been corroborated by her uncle Suraj Bhan. Suraj Bhan has stated that her hue and cry attracted him to the spot. He has stated that he saw the accused coming out and running. Doctor has also stated that he found contusion on her cheek and this contusion was the result of human bite.

Learned counsel for the petitioner next submitted that there is delay in the lodging of the FIR. According to the prosecution, occurrence took place on 10.1.1993 while the matter was reported to the police on 11.1.1993. Suffice it to say when the modesty of a girl or woman is involved, people are slow in reporting the matter to the police. They weigh the pros and cons of reporting or not reporting the matter to the police and when they feel that the matter should be reported to the police, they report to the police. In this case, the matter was first taken to the Biradari. When Biradari could not give redress to the prosecutrix, the matter was reported to the police. There is thus cogent explanation in the delayed reporting of the matter to the police. No animous was disclosed against the prosecutrix or her father. No father would falsely accuse that there had been attempt to outrage the modesty of his daughter unless the accusation is correct.

I have gone through the judgments of the two courts below. I do not find any illegality and infirmity in the appreciation of evidence by them. In my opinion, accused was justifiably convicted by the Courts below. Accused cannot be released on probation of good conduct as he is a savage and brute. He did not spare even a girl aged 12 years, entered her house and started rolling his hand upon her shoulder with a view to gratify his lust. He did not stop at that. He gave a bite on her cheek which shows that he satisfied his carnal lust on that innocent and a young girl. Sentence imposed should however be slashed and brought down as the accused has been facing the vagaries of this trial for the last six years. He should be dealt with little leniently in the matter of sentence as this trial has been hanging on his head like a damocle''s sword. Sentence imposed upon the petitioner is slashed and brought down to simple imprisonment for 6 months and fine of Rs. 1000/ is enhanced to Rs. 2000/. In default of payment of fine, further simple Imprisonment for two months under Section 451 IPC. He is sentenced to Simple imprisonment for 9 months under Section 354 IPC and three months Simple Imprisonment under Section 323 IPC. Subject to this reduction/variation in sentence, this revision petition fails and is dismissed. Amount of fine, if recovered, shall be paid to Kamlesh. All these sentences shall run concurrently.