Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia, J. - (1.) SANTOSH Kumari complainant, has preferred present revision petition. Sheo Karan, respondent No. 2, was tried in case FIR No. 139 dated 15.7.1994 by the police of Police Station Siwani under Section 354 IPC. He was convicted and sentenced by the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Siwani under Section 354 IPC to undergo simple imprisonment for three months and to pay a fine of Rs. 500/ -. In case of non - payment of fine, he was further ordered to undergo simple imprisonment for one month.
(2.) SHEO Karan preferred an appeal against his conviction and sentence. Learned Additional Sessions Judge, Bhiwani, on 13.5.1998 accepted the appeal and recorded acquittal of respondent No. 2 Sheo Karan. Learned Additional Sessions Judge accepted the appeal primarily on the ground that Santosh Kumari was minor girl aged about ten years and she could be tutored. It was further held by learned Additional Sessions Judge that since at the time of occurrence, Santosh Kumari was aged ten years and was a child. The petitioner was aged about 70 years and by appearance his body is very weak and feeble. The petitioner may not have a bad intention when he caught hold of the prosecutrix. He further held that there is delay of 24 hours in lodging of the report. The findings of learned Additional Sessions Judge may not be appropriate but in the revisional Court, I have to formulate limited opinion whether the view taken by learned Appellate Court below was one of the view which can be taken or not. In case the opinion formed by learned Additional Sessions Judge is one of the view, which can be taken. In the revisional Court, I would be hesitant to set aside the same. I am also conscious of the fact that in 1994 Sheo Karan was 70 years old and was married. Even if I take contrary view, the matter will be remanded back and respondent No. 2 cannot have the sentence more than what was awarded by the trial Court. Period of 14 years even otherwise would be a ground for reduction as mitigating circumstance; coupled with fact that Sheo Karan, respondent, as on today will be of 84 years age.
(3.) IN my view, though the findings of learned Additional Sessions Judge may not be very sound but he formed one opinion, which could be taken from appreciation of the evidence. Interference by this Court will be an exercise in futility taking the age of respondent No. 2 and protracted trial into consideration. Hence, no interference is called for.;