CRR No. 3267 of 2010

-1-

IN THE PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT AT

CHANDIGARH

CRR No. 3267 of 2010 (O&M)

Date of Decision :1.3.2011

Suresh

.......... petitioner

Versus

State of Haryana

...... Respondent

CORAM : HON'BLE Ms. JUSTICE RITU BAHRI

Present :

Mr. R.A. Sheoran, Advocate

for the petitioner.

Mr. P.S. Virk, Addl. A.G., Haryana.

****

RITU BAHRI, J.

This criminal revision has been filed against the impugned

judgment dated 15.11.2010 passed by the learned Addl. Sessions

Judge, Bhiwani whereby the appeal of the petitioner has been

dismissed and upheld the judgment of conviction and sentence order

passed by the learned trial Court vide which the petitioner has been

convicted and awarded sentence for one year and and to pay fine of

Rs. 500/- under Section 354/34 IPC.

The petitioner has challenged the judgment of the learned

Courts below on the ground that the learned Courts below have

totally ignored the statements of PW-1, PW-2 & PW-3. There are

material contradictions in the statement of PW1, who had stated that

CRR No. 3267 of 2010

-2-

police came at 9/10.00 a.m. on 20.7.2004 and further it was stated

that the police came at 2/2.30 p.m. PW-2 stated that the application

was given at 7.00 p.m. when they were going on patrolling duty.

Similar statement has been made by the other police officials. PW1

has stated that Jug Pravesh was tied after apprehending whereas

PW2 Hazari Lal stated that both the accused were produced on

20.7.2004. PW3 stated that when the police came, Jug Pravesh ran

away whereas PW1 has not stated anything.

As per prosecution, a case was registered on an

application dated 20.7.2004, moved by Suman wife of Sombir on the

allegations that on 19.7.2004 at about 11.00 p.m. when she along

with her husband was sleeping on the tubewell in their field two

person came and outraged her modesty. She identified one of them

as neighbourer Suresh Kumar and another was not known to her.

She raised an alarm and at this both the persons ran away. She

came to know the name of other person as Jug Pravesh @ Leela son

of Kunda Ram. An FIR was registered under Section 354/34 IPC.

After investigation, challan was presented and after going

through the entire evidence, the learned trial Court has convicted the

petitioner under Section 354/34 IPC and sentenced to undergo

rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year and to pay a fine of

Rs. 500/-.

On appeal, vide judgment dated 15.11.2010 the learned

Addl. Sessions Judge, Bhiwani dismissed the appeal and upheld the

judgment of conviction and sentence order passed by the learned

trial Court.

CRR No. 3267 of 2010

-3-

In revision, it has been alleged that there are many

contradictions in the statements of the witnesses and the petitioner

has been falsely implicated in this case.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has stated that the

petitioner has already undergone 1 ½ month sentence after the

conviction and he be released on probation.

Mr. P.S. Virk, Addl. A.G., Haryana has placed on record

the custody certificate by way of affidavit of Superintendent District

Jail, Bhiwani. As per this custody certificate, the petitioner has

already under gone 1 month and 28 days from 15.11.2010 to

11.1.2011. Hence, today when the matter has been taken up the

petitioner has already undergone 3 months and 14 days out of one

year. There is no contradiction in the deposition of the witnesses,

therefore, the judgments of the learned lower Courts are liable to be

upheld as they are based on the evidence on record and oral

testimony of the witnesses.

Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the

impugned judgment and orders. I find no ground to interfere with the

impugned judgment and orders. Consequently, the judgments and

orders passed by the learned Courts below do not call for any

interference by this Court.

However, I am of the view that in view of the emerging

circumstances the petit