Partly allowed

Ishwar Singh v. State of Haryana

Punjab & Haryana HC1 Oct 2010CRR/2038/2003

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In criminal revision, the High Court acquitted the petitioner of Section 354 IPC due to inconsistencies in the prosecutrix's testimony but upheld conviction under Section 451 IPC for trespass with criminal intent, directing release on probation.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner acquitted of Section 354 IPC charges; convicted under Section 451 IPC and released on probation with a bond of Rs.10,000/-.

Ishwar Singh Vs State of Haryana — Murder and Culpable Homicide | Punjab & Haryana HC (2010)

¶1

¶2

Criminal Revision No.2038 of 2003

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶4

Criminal Revision No.2038 of 2003 Date of Decision 01.10.2010

Ishwar Singh

...... Petitioner

VERSUS

State of Haryana

...... Respondent

CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.N.JINDAL

¶11

Present: Mr.N.S.Shekhawat, Advocate, for the petitioner.

¶12

Mr.J.S.Rattu, Deputy Advocate General, Haryana, for the respondent-State.

¶13

¶14

A.N.JINDAL, J:

¶15

Challenge in this petition is to the judgment dated 24.09.2003, passed by the Appellate Court, dismissing the appeal against the judgment dated 31.10.2000, passed by Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Rewari, convicting and sentencing the petitioner-accused (herein referred as 'the accused') to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- each under Sections 354 and 451 IPC.

¶16

The prosecution story in brief is that on 03.03.1999 at about 1:00 p.m., when prosecutrix was alone inside her grocery (parchoon) shop as her parents had gone to the fields to fetch wheat, the accused, who is her co-villager, came to her shop and demanded a bundle of biri. When the prosecutrix asked him that she had no key with her then the accused entered the said shop, caught hold of her hand and dragged her inside the house with a view to molest her. The prosecutrix cried for help. In the meanwhile, her father, who happened to return from the field, rescued her from the accused. At this, the accused fled away. On the aforesaid

¶17

Criminal Revision No.2038 of 2003 2

¶18

statement of prosecutrix, FIR was registered and the investigation commenced. Investigating Officer visited the place of occurrence, prepared the rough site plan, recorded the statements of witnesses and arrested the accused. Completion of investigation was followed by a report under Section 173 Cr.P.C.

¶19

The accused was charged for the aforesaid offences to which he pleaded not guilty and opted to contest.

¶20

In order to substantiate the charges, the prosecution examined prosecutrix (PW1), Mange Ram (PW2) and Inspector Karnail Chand (PW3).

¶21

When examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C., the accused denied all the incriminating circumstances appearing against him and pleaded his false implication in the case. In defence, he examined Bhim Singh (DW1) and Ashok Kumar (DW2).

¶22

Arguments heard. Record perused.

¶23

The allegations, as mentioned in the FIR, are that the accused trespassed into the shop; caught hold of her hand and dragged inside her residential house with an intention to molest her. However, the evidence, as recorded by the prosecutrix in Court, cannot be believed in its entirety as she has made various improvements while stating that in the process of dragging her, the accused pressed her breast, thus, on account of such material improvements, her statement cannot be accepted as a whole. From the evidence, as led by the prosecution, the Court could conclude that the accused trespassed into the house of the complainant with an intention to commit crime, therefore, he could not be held guilty of the offence under Section 354 IPC, consequently, the sentence awarded by the Courts below under the said Section is to be set aside. However, since the accused

¶24

Criminal Revision No.2038 of 2003 3

¶25

trespassed into the shop with an intention to commit a crime, therefore, he could be held guilty for the offence under Section 451 IPC.

¶26

Now coming to the quantum of sentence, the occurrence in this case took place on 03.03.1999. The petitioner-accused has already suffered a lot on account of the protracted trial. Admittedly, he is the first offender. No such bad antecedents were brought on record in order to dub him as habitual offender. He has already undergone more than one month of the substantive sentence. Under these peculiar circumstances, it would be in the fitness of things to take some leniency.

¶27

Resultantly, this petition is partly accepted. The petitioner is acquitted of the charges under Section 354 IPC. However, the conviction recorded by the Courts below under Section 451 IPC is maintained and he is directed to be released on probation under Section 4 (1) of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 on his executing a bond in the sum of Rs.10,000/- with one surety in the like amount, to the satisfaction of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Rewari, for a period of one year within which period he shall continue to be of good behaviour and keep peace and in case of breach of conditions of the bond, he will be ready to serve sentence as and when called for.

¶28

Copy of the order be sent to the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Rewari, for compliance.

¶29

01.10.2010 mamta-II

Ishwar Singh v. State of Haryana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ishwar Singh v. State of Haryana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Gian Singh Vs State of Punjab

Chander Kalan Vs Rameshwar

Mahindero Devi Vs Baldev Kumar

Jai Pal Singh etc. Vs State of Haryana etc.

Baljit and Ors. Vs State of Haryana and Ors.

State of Haryana Vs Siri Ram and Anr.