Punjab-Haryana High Court
Om Parkash vs State Of Punjab on 19 May, 2011
Author: K.C.Puri
Bench: K.C.Puri
Criminal Appeal No. 1244 SB of 2000 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
Criminal Appeal No. 1244 SB of 2000
Date of decision 19.5.2011.
Om Parkash
...... Appellant.
versus
State of Punjab
...... Respondent.
CORAM :- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE K.C.PURI.
Present :- Mr. Ruminderjeet Singh, Advocate for
Mr. R.P.Dhir, Advocate for the appellant.
Mr. A.S.Rai, AAG, Punjab.
K.C.PURI, J.
Appellant has directed the present appeal against the judgment and order dated 30.10.2000 passed by learned Sessions Judge, Hoshiarpur vide which the appellant has been convicted under Sections 452 and 354 of the Indian Penal Code (in short-the IPC) and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- and in default of payment of fine to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for two months under Section 452 IPC and to further undergo rigorous imprisonment Criminal Appeal No. 1244 SB of 2000 2 for a period of two years and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- and in default of payment of fine to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for two months under Section 354 IPC. Both the substantive sentences were, however, ordered to run concurrently.
The prosecution story in brief is that on 15.7.1999, when ASI Surinder Kumar of PS Hajipur was present at Adda Jheer-di-Khuhi, Smt. Sheela Devi complainant met him and lodged the report with him. She has stated that her husband was working in Thein Dam, Gurdaspur and he suffered attack of paralysis five years back on account of which his mental condition was not good and he had left the house without telling them. She has two sons and four daughters. Her two daughters are married and her sons and daughter prosecutrix aged about 14 years are living with her. On 5.7.1999 at about 12 noon she along with her husband's younger brother Joginder Singh's wife Smt. Lila Devi were planting rice seeds in the nearby fields while prosecutrix had come to the house to prepare meals. Her neighbourer Om Parkash alias Kala aged about 32 years came to their house and after entering their residential house called the prosecutrix, who was working in the kitchen asking her as to where was the bundle of Beeris of her brother Som Raj and she should come and give the same to him and her daughter entered the room in order to give the bundle of Beeris to Kala aforesaid and her daughter started raising alarm of 'Bachao Bachao' and then they both i.e. she and Lila Devi on hearing the voice of prosecutrix came towards the house and from the window which has no wooden shutters but has only iron bars fixed they peeped in and saw that Kala aforesaid tore off her clothes i.e. Jamper and Salwar of rose colour with intent to outrage her Criminal Appeal No. 1244 SB of 2000 3 modesty and he was catching hold of the breast of prosecutrix with both of his hands and prosecutrix was trying to get herself released from him and was making entreaties and on our reaching there, Om Parkash alias Kala ran away towards the house of Hans Raj and Joginder Singh by opening the door and while going threatened that if the matter was reported to the Panchayat or the police, he would kill the whole family. Till the date of making report, the respectable of her village and the relatives had been trying to get the compromise effected but Om Parkash had not returned home since that day. So, she along with Pardeep Singh Ex-Sarpanch and Arjan Singh were going to the police station to make the report when they met the police. ASI Surinder Kumar made his endorsement on the said statement and sent the same to the police station for registration of the case. Statements of the witnesses were recorded. Rough site plan of the place of incident was also prepared. The accused surrendered before the learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Dasuya. After completion of necessary investigations, challan against the accused was presented in the Court for trial of the accused.
On appearance of the accused, complete copies of challan papers were supplied to the accused by the learned Illaqua Magistrate, who committed the case to the Court of Session as the offence punishable under Section 376 IPC was exclusively triable by the Court of Session. The trial Court framed charges under Sections 452 and 376 read with Section 511 of the IPC against the accused. The accused pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
Criminal Appeal No. 1244 SB of 2000 4
In order to prove its case, prosecution examined Smt. Sheela Devi as (PW-1), prosecutrix as (PW-2), Smt,.Leela Devi as (PW-3), Pardeep Singh as (PW-4), Karam Chand as (PW-5), Nand Lal Constable as (PW-6), ASI S.K.Sharma as (PW-7), Vijay Kumar Draftsman as (PW-8), ASI Balbir Singh as (PW-9) and closed its case.
After closure of the prosecution evidence, statement of the accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C., was recorded. The accused denied all the incriminating evidence and claimed to be innocent and false implication in the case. He has further stated that he is a married man having three children and the eldest child is ten years of age. He went to the house of prosecutrix PW to get the cooked vegetable and not to collect the Beeris from her house of her brother nor her brother had asked him to bring Beeris from his house. At that time, prosecutrix was inside the room. He called her and asked to come out and give him the cooked vegetable. It was usual between the two families to get cooked vegetables in time and need from each other. She asked him to come inside the room and he went inside the room, she held him from his arms and asked him to make lover to her since previously also she had expressed that she had a liking for him, but he used to tell her that he did not like her and since he is a married person she should not behave in that manner. Meanwhile, her mother arrived at the house and she asked him to leave the house and he then returned from their house. It is a false case brought by the mother of prosecutrix in a mala fide collusion with Arjan Singh, Pardeep Kumar and others and he is innocent. However, he did not lead any evidence in defence.
Criminal Appeal No. 1244 SB of 2000 5
The learned Sessions Judge, Hoshiarpur after hearing the learned counsel for the parties, convicted and sentenced the accused/appellant vide judgment and order dated 30.10.2000, as aforesaid.
Feeling dis-satisfied with the aforesaid judgment and order, the appellant has preferred the present appeal.
I have heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned Assistant Advocate General for the State of Punjab and have also carefully perused the case file.
Although the learned counsel for the appellant has not challenged the conviction but has submitted that the sentence is on higher side and prayed for reduction in the sentence. But since it is a first appeal, I have myself gone through the judgment. The accusation against the accused-appellant is fully supported by the prosecution witnesses and there is no reason for falsely implicating the accused. So, the conviction recorded by the trial Court stands affirmed.
So far as the quantum of sentence is concerned, the trial Court has awarded rigorous imprisonment for a period of two years and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- and in default of payment of fine to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for two months under Section 452 of the IPC and to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- and in default of payment of fine to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for two months under Section 354 IPC. The accused- appellant has undergone incarceration for a period one year and twenty one days. He has been released on bail by this Court on 14.2.2001. He is also Criminal Appeal No. 1244 SB of 2000 6 undergoing the protracted trial since 1999 and has a growing up family. He is the sole bread earner of the family. In case again he has been sent to the jail, his entire family would starve.
So, keeping in view the period of trial i.e. more than ten years and the fact that the appellant is not a previous convict as per record, the sentence is reduced to the period already undergone by the accused- appellant. However, the sentence of fine stands affirmed.
With the above said modification in the sentence, the appeal stands disposed of accordingly.
A copy of this judgment be sent to the trial Court for strict compliance.
( K.C.PURI )
JUDGE
May 19, 2011
sv