IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA

Cr. Revision No. 91 of 2015

Reserved on : 28.11.2025 Decided on: 03.12.2025

_________________________________________________________

Roshan Lal

o ...Petitioner

Versus

State of HP

t …Respondent

_________________________r________________________________

Coram

Hon'ble Mr. Justice Sushil Kukreja, Judge

1 Whether approved for oreporting?

_____________________________________________________

For the petitioner: Mr. Naveen K. Bhardwaj, Advocate.

For the respondent: Mr. Ankush Thakur, Deputy Advocates

General.

Sushil Kukreja, Judge

The present revision petition has been preferred by the

petitioner-accused (hereinafter referred to as ‘the accused’) under Sections 397 read with Section 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C.) against the judgment dated 19.03.2015, passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Mandi, District Mandi, H.P., in Criminal Appeal No.26/2014 (2010), whereby the appeal filed by the accused against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 13.09.2010, passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Mandi, District Mandi, H.P., in

1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment?

Criminal Case No.177-II/2005, were upheld and the appeal filed by the accused was dismissed.

2. Briefly stated the facts of the case, as emerge from the record, are that on 13.09.2005, at about 12:30 p.m., while the complainant was grazing her cattle in the village, the accused came there, pressed her breast and assaulted her with an intention to outrage her modesty and also torn her clothes. She raised alarm and then her mother-in-law came on the spot. Thereafter, the matter was reported to the police, on the basis of which, the FIR in question was registered against the accused. On an earlier occasion also, i.e. on 07.09.2005, the accus ed had gone to the shop of the complainant to purchase 'beedi' in a drunkard condition and had misbehaved with her. She was rescued by her mother-in-law on that day also. However, the matter was not reported to the police because the complainant party and the accused belonged to the same family.

3. The police, during the course of investigation, prepared the spot map, recorded statements of the witnesses and also took into possession the torn clothes of the complainant. After completion of the investigation, the police prepared the charge-sheet and presented the same in the learned Trial Court.

4. The learned trial Court, after having found the accused guilty, convicted him for the offence punishable under Section 354 of IPC, vide judgment of conviction/order dated 13.09.2010 and sentenced him to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of six months. Aggrieved against the aforesaid judgment of conviction and order of sentence, the accused preferred an appeal before the learned lower Appellate Court, which was dismissed, vide judgment dated 19.03.2015. 5. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment dated 19.03.2015, the petitioner-accused preferred the instant revision petition.

6. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner-accused as well as learned Deputy Advocate General and also gone through the entire record carefully.

7. At the very outset, the learned counsel for the petitioner did not argue the case on merits, but alternatively submitted that since the petitioner is the first offender and there is no previous conviction against him, therefore, he be released on probation. He further submitted that the petitioner is facing the proceedings in the present case since the year 2005 and now he is having good reputation in the society and he is taking good care of his wife and the children.

8. After going through the entire record, I do not find any perversity or infirmity in the findings given by learned Trial Court convicting the accused. Regarding the prayer of taking a lenient view and to consider release of the petitioner on probation, this Court has also called for the report from the Probation Officer and while submitt