- (1.) THE appellant was tried for offences under Sections 363, 367 and 377 IPC. Vide judgment and order dated 10.9.2011, the Additional Sessions Judge, Chandigarh, acquitted him of the offences under Sections 367 and 377 IPC. He was, however, convicted under Section 354 IPC and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years. He was also convicted under Section 363 IPC and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for four years and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/ - and in default of payment of fine, to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months. The period of detention already undergone by him during the investigation, enquiry and trial of the case was ordered to be set off against the substantive sentences awarded to him. Hence, the present appeal.
(2.) ACCORDING to the prosecution, the appellant used to live on the second floor of the building in a room on rent whereas the complainant, alongwith his wife and two children, including the prosecutrix lived on the ground floor. On 1.1.2010, the complainant after finishing labour work returned to his house at about 6.00 PM. He was informed by his wife that at about 4.00 PM when she was present outside the house, their daughter, aged five years, was playing there. For sometime the wife of the complainant went inside the house for some work and when she returned after 5/7 minutes, she found her daughter missing. She then went to the second floor of the building and saw the appellant opening the door of the room and pushing her minor daughter out of the same. The appellant hurriedly closed the door. At that time, the daughter of the complainant was weeping loudly. When her mother enquired as to why she was weeping, her daughter told her that the appellant had pricked her vagina with his finger. The wife of the complainant noticed that the 'pajami' worn by her daughter was stained with blood. She brought her daughter downstairs and kept on waiting for the complainant. She again went to the second floor of the building and knocked at the door of the room occupied by the appellant, who opened the door and was found to be smelling of alcohol. When she talked to him about the occurrence, he started fighting with her and tried to run away.
(3.) THE appellant was brought downstairs where many people had gathered in the meantime. The complainant was also informed about the incident when he returned back home. Learned counsel for the appellant has not challenged the impugned judgment of conviction as well as of sentence. However, he has submitted that the trial Court after imposing sentence of imprisonment for two years under Section 354 and four years under Section 363 IPC did not specify about the running of the two sentences of imprisonment as concurrent and as a result thereof, the appellant is required to undergo six years of imprisonment. The appellant is in custody since 2.1.2010 and continues to remain behind the bars despite having been granted the concession of bail by this Court vide order dated 1.10.2012 as he had not been in a position to furnish personal bonds in the sum of Rs.40,000/ - as directed in the said order. Therefore, by now he has already undergone an actual sentence of more than four years and one month. As both the offences for which the appellant stands convicted were committed in the same incident, the sentences of imprisonment imposed upon the appellant on both the counts ought to have been ordered to run concurrently. Prayer has, accordingly, been made for making the two sentences of imprisonment to run concurrently.;