The court affirmed conviction under IPC for attempted modesty outrage and house trespass, allowing probation benefits based on the offender's age and significant delay post-offence.

JUDGMENT :

V. Narasingh, J.

1. This Criminal Revision has been filed assailing the Judgment dated 27.12.2025 passed by the learned Addl. Dist. & Sessions Judge, Umerkote in Criminal Appeal No.02 of 2022, affirming the order of conviction dated 05.07.2022 of the Petitioner passed by the learned J.M.F.C., Umerkote in G.R. Case No.121 of 2007 (T.R. No.695 of 2007) under Sections 354 /511 of IPC and imposing a sentence of R.I. for a period of one year and fine of Rs.500/- (Rupees Five hundred only), and in default to undergo R.I. for period of 3 months, further U/s 451 to undergo R.I. for a period of one month and fine of Rs.300/-(Rupees three hundred only)and, in default to undergo R.I. for a period of Eight days. Substantive sentences were directed to run concurrently. It was further directed that on the recovery of fine, the same shall be paid to the victim Laxmirani Bachar as compensation u/s 357 of the Cr.P.C. after expiry of four months of the appeal period.

2. It is the case of the prosecution that on 19.03.2007 at about 2 A.M., the accused forcibly entered the house of the victim at night. A lamp was lit in the said room, and he attempted to outrage her modesty. On her raising hullah, her brother-in-law suddenly came to her room and caught hold of the accused. A fight ensued. But somehow the accused-petitioner managed to escape.

The next morning a village meeting was called to resolve the issue. But the accused Petitioner did not respond. Thereafter, on 21.03.2007, F.I.R. was instituted by the Informant, registered as Umerkote P.S. Case No. 36 of 2007, under Sections 451 /354/511 of IPC . After completion of investigation, the charge sheet was filed under /354/511 against the Petitioner.

3. In the trial, to drive home the charge, the prosecution examined 7 witnesses of whom P.W.1, the Informant and P.W.2, the brother-in-law are of significance.

Defence evidence was adduced by citing three witnesses of whom D.W.3 is the accused himself.

4. The learned Trial Court after examining the evidence and materials on record, including the statement of the informant P.W.1, who is also the victim as well as P.W.2- brother-in-law of the informant, found the Petitioner guilty of commission of offence under Sections 354 /511 of IPC and directed to undergo R.I. for a period of one year and imposed a fine of Rs.500/- and in default to undergo R.I. for a period of three months and under Section 451 of to undergo R.I. for a period of one month and fine of Rs.300/- and in default to undergo R.I. for a period of Eight days with a further direction that the substantive sentences shall run concurrently.

Further, the prayer of the Petitioner for release under the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958(hereinafter referred to as ‘P.O. Act’) was negatived.

On appeal being preferred, the conviction and the imposition of sentence having been upheld, the present Criminal Revision has been filed.

5. Heard learned counsel for the Petitioner and learned counsel for the State.

6. At the outset, learned counsel for the Petitioner submits that he does not want to assail the order on merits and seeks extension of the benefit of the P.O. Act and it is stated that the date of occurrence is of the year 2007, i.e. almost 19 years back and the Petitioner is now aged about 73 years.

On instruction, it is further submitted that save and except the case at hand, the Petitioner did not involve himself in commission of any other offence and it is urged that no purpose would be served by sending the Petitioner to custody at this belated stage in view of his age. Hence, the benefit of P.O. Act may be extended to him.

7. Such submission is not seriously opposed by