Satyabir vs State of Haryana

Sham Sunder, J.—This revision petition is directed against the judgement, dated 10.07.02, rendered by the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Narnaul, vide which, it dismissed the appeal, against the judgement of conviction and the order of sentence, dated 13.09.01, rendered by the Court of Judicial Magistrate 1 St Class, Mahendergarh, whereby, the accused (now revisionpetitioner) was convicted, for the offence, punishable under Section 354 of the Indian Penal Code, and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment, for a period of one year.

On 15.08.95, at about 3.00 PM, Bimla, prosecutrix, a married woman, having two children, was going to the fields to answer the call of nature and when she reached near the cart, of blacksmith, Satyabir Singh son of Kanshi Ram, came from the opposite side and apprehended her. When she resisted, her blouse was torn by the accused. She raised an alarm, which attracted Virender son of Nand Lal and Sumunder Singh son of Pehlad, who rescued her, from the clutches of the accused, (now revisionpetitioner). A Panchayat was convened, in the village, but to no avail. On the basis of the statement, made by Bimla, the First Information Report, was registered. The accused (now revisionpetitioner), was arrested. After the completion of investigation, he was challaned.

On his appearance, in the Court, the accused was supplied the copies of documents, relied upon by the prosecution. Charge under Sections 354 of the Indian Penal Code, was framed against him, which was readover and explained to him, to which he pleaded not guilty, and claimed judicial trial.

The prosecution, in support of its case, examined Mahipal (PW1), Bimla, prosecutrix (PW2), Balbir Singh (PW3), and Satish Kumar (PW4). Thereafter, the Additional Public Prosecutor for the State, closed the prosecution evidence.

The statement of the accused, under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, was recorded. He was put all the incriminating circumstances, appearing against him, in the prosecution evidence. He pleaded false implication. He, however, produced no evidence, in defence.

After hearing the Counsel for the parties, and on going through the evidence, on record, the trial Court, convicted and sentenced the accused, as stated above.

Feeling aggrieved, an appeal was preferred by the appellant (now revisionpetitioner), which was dismissed by the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Narnaul, vide judgement dated 10.07.02.

Still feeling aggrieved, the instant revision petition, was filed by the revisionpetitioner.

I have heard the Counsel for the parties, and have gone through and perused the evidence and record of the case, carefully.

The Counsel for the revisionpetitioner, did not assail the conviction, recorded by the trial Court, and affirmed by the Appellate Court. Even otherwise, he could not successfully assail the same. The concurrent findings of the Courts below, regarding the proof of the guilt of the accused, are based on the correct appreciation of cogent, convincing and reliable evidence of Mahipal (PW1), Bimla, prosecutrix (PW2), Balbir Singh (PW3), and Satish Kumar (PW4). The judgement of conviction, rendered by the trial Court, and affirmed by the Appellate Court, does not suffer from any illegality or perversity. The finding recorded by the Courts below, with regard to the proof of the guilt of the accused, by no stretch of imagination, can be said to be perverse or erroneous. It is settled principle of law that while exercising re visional jurisdiction, the Court cannot re appreciate and reappraise the evidence, until and unless, it comes to the conclusion that the findings recorded by the Courts below, wereprima facie perverse. The judgement of conviction, rendered by the trial Court, and affirmed by the Appellate Court, thus, deserves to be upheld.

The Counsel for the revisionpetitioner, however, submitted that the sentence awarded to the revisionpetitioner, be reduced suitably, as he has been facing the protracted criminal proceedings since 22.08.1995 i.e. for the last more than 13 year. He further submitted that during all these years, he suffered a lot of pain, and agony and has come to senses. The submission of the Counsel for the revisionpetitioner, in this regard, appears to be correct. (The sword of damocles has been hanging over the head of the revisionpetitioner, for the last more than 13 years. In my considered opinion, he must have learnt the lesson, by now. At this stage, it would be too harsh, to send the revisionpetitioner to jail. The Counsel for the revisionpetitioner, however, submitted that the revisionpetitioner, has already undergone two months of sentence. In my considered opinion, the ends of justice, shall be met, in case, the substantive sentence of rigorous imprisonment for one year, awarded to the revisionpetitioner, is reduced to rigorous imprisonment for two months. The submission of the Counsel for the revisionpetitioner, to this extent, is accepted.

For the reasons recorded above, the revisionpetition, is partly accepted. The judgement of conviction, rendered by the trial Court, and affirmed, by the Appellate Court, is upheld. The substantive sentence is modified, in the manner, that the revisionpetitioner, shall undergo rigorous imprisonment for two months, instead of one year.

The Chief Judicial Magistrate, is directed, to comply with the judgement, in accordance with the provisions of law promptly, on receipt of a copy of the judgement.