T.P.S.MANN, J. - (1.) BY way of the present revision, Roshan Lal petitioner has challenged his conviction under Section 354 IPC and sentence of RI for one year and fine of Rs. 1,000/-. In default of payment of fine, he was directed to undergo further RI for a period of one month. The judgment of conviction and sentence rendered by the Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Hisar on 17.9.2002, was upheld by Additional Sessions Judge, Hisar on 13.6.2006.
(2.) AT the time of the preliminary hearing of the revision, notice of motion was issued to Advocate General, Haryana regarding the question as to whether the petitioner can be extended the benefit of probation or not. The facts of the case are that on 15.1.2001 at about 5.30 a.m. Sunita PW- 3, aged 20 years and married in village Jhajhanwala and had come to meet her father and mother in village Dhani Garan, went to a plot to answer the call of nature. When she opened the door of the toilet, she saw Roshan Lal petitioner standing there. The moment she opened the door, the petitioner placed his foot over her foot and held her by his hands. He tried to drag her in the toilet, besides making an attempt to rape her. Sunita shouted, which attracted her brother Satbir and her father Hanuman. Both of them caught hold of the petitioner in the plot and took him to their house. On the statement made by aforementioned Sunita, the case was registered on the same day under Section 354 IPC against the petitioner.
(3.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner has contended that the petitioner was young person of 20/21 years of age at the time of the alleged occurrence and sole bread earner for his family. Besides, he was a first time offender and therefore, he be released on probation instead of keeping him behind bars for serving out the sentence. Reliance has also been placed on Parkash v. State of Haryana, 1986(1) RCR(Crl.) 94; Rajesh alias Pappu v. State of Haryana, 1996(1) RCR(Crl.) 394 and Bijender v. State of Haryana, 1996(1) RCR(Crl.) 192 in contending that it was a fit case for the extension of benefit of probation to the petitioner.;