Punjab-Haryana High Court
Kulvinder Singh vs State Of Punjab on 10 November, 2010
Author: T.P.S. Mann
Bench: T.P.S. Mann
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
Criminal Appeal S-959-SB of 2002
Date of Decision : November 10, 2010
Kulvinder Singh
....Appellant
Versus
State of Punjab
.....Respondent
CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T.P.S. MANN
Present : Mr. Veneet Sharma, Advocate
Mr. P.S. Sidhu, Additional Advocate General, Punjab.
T.P.S. MANN, J. (Oral)
The appellant was tried for an offence under Section 376 read with Section 511 IPC on the allegation that on 6.3.1999 at about 6.00 P.M., he had outraged the modesty of the prosecutrix, aged about seven years. After going through the evidence brought on the record, learned trial Court concluded that the offence as alleged by the prosecution was not made out. However, the appellant was proved to have committed an offence under Section 354 IPC.
When the matter was fixed before the trial Court for considering the quantum of sentence, a plea was raised on behalf of the appellant that as he was a juvenile, the matter be forwarded to the Board for passing orders on the question of sentence. After noticing the facts that at the time of framing of the charges the appellant had given his age Criminal Appeal S-959-SB of 2002 -2- as 18 years and in the conviction slip prepared by the prosecution at the time of his arrest, his age was recorded as 16/17 years the trial Court held that from appearance the appellant was more than 18 years of age and less than 21 years of age. The matter was, thereafter, sent to District Probation Officer, Amritsar, who reported that the appellant and the members of his family were having good moral character and except the case in hand, he was not found connected with any other offence. However, keeping in view the fact that the appellant had committed a serious offence, the trial Court restrained itself from extending the benefit of probation and instead, sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years and to pay a fine of Rs.2,000/- and in default thereof, to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for three months.
Learned counsel for the appellant has made a valiant attempt to convince the Court about the false implication of the appellant in the present case. However, after going through the evidence available on the file and perusing the impugned judgment of conviction passed by the trial Court, I am of the view that the conviction of the appellant for the offence under Section 354 IPC is well merited.
On the question of sentence, learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the appellant is not a previous convict. He is facing the agony of criminal prosecution for the last about 12 years. As per the report of the District Probation Officer submitted before the trial Court, the appellant and the members of his family were having a Criminal Appeal S-959-SB of 2002 -3- good moral character. The appellant was not found to be connected with any other offence and the present case was only a freak incident. The appellant was a young boy at the time of the occurrence. Under these circumstances, the sentence of imprisonment awarded to the appellant be set aside and instead, he be granted the benefit of probation.
Learned State counsel has submitted that as the appellant had outraged the modesty of a young girl of the age of about seven years, he does not deserve any concession in the matter of sentence.
After taking into consideration the totality of the circumstances, I am of the view that the appellant deserves to be granted the benefit of probation.
Resultantly, the conviction of the appellant under Section 354 IPC is maintained. His substantive sentence of imprisonment is set aside. Instead, he is ordered to be released on probation on his executing bonds in the sum of Rs.20,000/- with one surety of the like amount to the satisfaction of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Amritsar undertaking to keep peace and be of good behaviour for a period of two years and to appear and receive the sentence as and when called upon to do so during the said period. The sentence of fine shall be treated as compensation and be dealt with as directed by the trial Court.
The appeal is, accordingly, disposed of.
( T.P.S. MANN )
November 10, 2010 JUDGE
satish