Punjab-Haryana High Court
Jarnail Singh vs State Of Punjab on 5 January, 2024
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:000705
CRR No.2055 of 2023 (O&M)
-1-
Neutral Citation No.2024:PHHC:000705
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
106 CRR No.2055 of 2023 (O&M)
Date of decision: 05.01.2024
Jarnail Singh ... Petitioner
Vs.
State of Punjab ... Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE MANISHA BATRA
Present:- Mr. Rupender Singh Rana, Advocate,
for the petitioner.
----
MANISHA BATRA, J.
1. The present petition has been filed by the petitioner
challenging the judgment of conviction and order on quantum of sentence
dated 15.10.2018 as passed by learned Chief Judicial Magistrate,
Faridkot in case bearing FIR No.40 dated 22.04.2016 registered under
Sections 354 and 452 of IPC at Police Station Sadar, Kotkapura as well
as the judgment dated 17.10.2022 passed by learned Sessions Judge,
Faridkot whereby the appeal filed by him had been dismissed with
certain modification.
2. The criminal law had swung into action in this case on the
basis of a statement recorded by the complainant (name withheld) on
22.04.2016 alleging therein that on the previous night at about 12:30 AM,
she along with her children was sleeping in the courtyard of her house,
the present petitioner entered therein and tried to outrage her modesty.
On hearing alarms raised by her, her son had got up and on seeing him,
the petitioner had fled away along with kirpan which he was carrying.
1 of 4
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:000705
Neutral Citation No.2024:PHHC:000705
After registration of a case under Sections 354 and 452 of IPC as against
the petitioner, he was arrested. After completion of investigation, challan
against him was presented in the Court. He faced trial and was held guilty
and convicted for commission of the aforementioned offences and was
sentenced to undergo imprisonment for a period of two years for each of
the offences.
3. Feeling aggrieved from the judgment of conviction and order
on quantum of sentence, the petitioner had preferred an appeal before the
Court of learned Sessions Judge, Faridkot. A perusal of the contents of
the judgment dated 17.10.2022 as passed by learned Sessions Judge
reveals that during the course of arguments, the petitioner had not chosen
to assail the findings on the point of conviction and the only prayer which
was made by him was for modifying the order on quantum of sentence by
way of reducing the sentence of imprisonment of two years for each
offence. The learned Appellate Court, while considering this request, had
modified the order on quantum of sentence and had reduced the period of
sentences from two years each to one year each without any modification
in the amount of fine as imposed by the trial Court and both the sentences
were ordered to run concurrently.
4. From the impugned judgment of the learned Lower Appellate
Court, it is noticed that the learned counsel representing the petitioner
had not challenged conviction of the petitioner before the said Court and
had addressed arguments only in regard to quantum of sentence. Be that
as it may, but with a view to satisfy myself as to the correctness and the
2 of 4
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:000705
Neutral Citation No.2024:PHHC:000705
conviction recorded by the trial Court against the present petitioner, I
have perused the record in the light of the arguments addressed by
learned counsel for the petitioner. From the evidence so produced by the
prosecution, it is clear that the incident in question in this case had
occurred on 22.04.2016. A complaint in this regard was lodged promptly
with the concerned Police Station on the same day. The learned trial
Court had properly analyzed the evidence produced on record and had
arrived at a well reasoned finding of fact that the present petitioner after
entering into the house of the victim on the fateful night had tried to
outrage her modesty. The petitioner had produced defence evidence
before the trial Court to prove that previously there was some loveable
relationship between the petitioner and the victim and she had implicated
him falsely in this case under the pressure of her husband. The learned
trial Court had analyzed the documents which were in the shape of letters
Ex.D-1 to D-8 in this regard but had observed that on the basis of these
letters which were alleged to have been written by the victim to him, the
allegations as levelled against the petitioner did not stand mitigated. The
learned trial Court as well Lower Appellate Court finding no merit in the
arguments of the petitioner had rightly held him guilty for commission of
the aforementioned offences. The view taken by the trial Court does not
suffer from any unreasonableness, perversity nor it is an understandable
on any ground, any other view even if possible by this Court is to be
substituted with the view of the trial Court in the facts and circumstances.
As such, I find no reason to come to any different conclusion and find no
3 of 4
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:000705
Neutral Citation No.2024:PHHC:000705
merit in the argument that the petitioner had been erroneously convicted.
5. Now on having satisfied myself as to the correctness of the
conviction of the appellant by the trial Court as upheld by the learned
Lower Appellate Court, it is to be considered as to whether the petitioner
deserves any further reduction in the sentence as awarded to him. As
already mentioned, he was held guilty and convicted for commission of
offences punishable under Sections 354 and 452 of IPC by learned trial
Court and was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years
for each of such offences. The learned Lower Appellate Court modified
the period of sentence and reduced the same to one year each. I do not
find any extenuating or mitigating circumstance available on record
justifying reduction of sentence lesser than what was awarded by learned
Lower Appellate Court. The learned counsel for the petitioner has also
not been able to assign any reasons, much less sufficient and adequate
reasons available on record to impose any lesser sentence. As such,
finding no merit, the petition is dismissed.
6. Miscellaneous application(s), if any, also stand disposed of.
(MANISHA BATRA)
05.01.2024 JUDGE
manju
Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No
Whether reportable Yes/No
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:000705
4 of 4
