Inderjit Singh v. State Ofpb.

S. No.102

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA

AT CHANDIGARH **** CRA-S-1359-SB of 2004 (O&M) Date of Decision:07.04.2025 Inderjit Singh .....Appellant Vs.

State of Punjab .....Respondent CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK GUPTA Present:- Mr. Vivek Lamba, Advocate for the appellant.

(Through Video Conferencing).

Mr. Rajiv K. Takkar, DAG, Punjab.

**** DEEPAK GUPTA, J. (Oral) In a case arising out of FIR No.112 dated 08.11.1999 registered at Police Sta2on Moga under Sec2ons 376 and 511 IPC, accused - Inderjit Singh (appellant herein) was convicted by the Court of learned Addi2onal Sessions Judge (Adhoc) Fast Track Court Faridkot under Sec2on 354 IPC and was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of two years and to pay fine of ₹500/- with default sentence of 02 months, for commi>ng the said offence under Sec2on 354 IPC.

2.

Against the afore-said convic2on and sentence, the present appeal is filed.

3.

Today, it is stated by learned counsel for the appellant that appellant does not want to press for his appeal against the judgment of convic2on and withdraws the same.

Page No.1 out of 3 pages

4.

Prayer is made by learned counsel to release the appellant on proba2on, considering the fact that the appellant was a young person at the 2me of commi>ng of the offence, which had taken place way back in November, 1999 i.e. more than 26 years back. It is also the conten2on of learned counsel that prosecutrix had not fully supported the prosecu2on version. 5.

Learned State Counsel has opposed the prayer by poin2ng out towards the nature of crime.

6.

Heard.

7.

As per the prosecu2on version, accused had dragged prosecutrix inside his house with an evil inten2on, made her to fall on the ground, started opening the string of her salwar and liBed her legs and as she raised alarm, her sister stopped him. Accused allegedly gave the slap to the sister of the prosecutrix but as other family members reached the spot, accused fled away. However, during trial, prosecutrix did not fully support the case. Though she stated that she was dragged inside the house but as her sister raised alarm, accused fled away. The trial Court has observed that as per the tes2mony of prosecutrix, the allega2on of the prosecu2on was proved to the extent that prosecutrix was tried to be dragged inside the house by the accused and that there was no aDempt to commit rape, as prosecutrix did not support the prosecu2on version to the effect that string of her salwar was aDempted to be opened by the accused or her legs were liBed. 8.

This Court does not find any illegality or perversity in the afore-said finding, having regard to the statement of the prosecutrix. 9.

Considering the statement made by learned counsel for the appellant, the appeal against convic2on recorded under Sec2on 354 IPC is hereby dismissed as withdrawn, thus, maintaining the convic2on. 10.

As far as order of sentence is concerned, the offence was commiDed in November, 1999 i.e. more than 26 years back. Accused was 22 years of age at Page No.2 out of 3 pages

that 2me as recorded in the trial Court judgment. It is not the case of the prosecu2on that prosecutrix was minor at the relevant 2me. Not only this, it is not even the case of the prosecu2on that it is the prosecutrix, who had raised the alarm, rather it is her sister, who had raised the alarm. 11.

Having no2ced the afresh-said facts and circumstances, this Court finds it to be a fit case, where the accused should be given the benefit of proba2on. As such, the accused- appellant is hereby directed to be released on proba2on for a period of two years, on furnishing necessary proba2on bonds in the sum of ₹50,000/- with a surety of like amount before learned Chief Judicial Magistrate concerned. At the same 2me, the appellant is burdened with the prosecu2on cost of 10,000/-. The said order is to be complied by the appellant within a period of four weeks from today, filing which the appellant will have to undergo the sentence as imposed by the trial Court. April 07, 2025 (DEEPAK GUPTA) renu JUDGE Whether Speaking/reasoned Yes/No Whether Reportable Yes/No Page No.3 out of 3 pages