Supreme Court - Daily Orders
Sukhdev Singh @ Kaku vs State Of Punjab on 11 November, 2014
Bench: T.S. Thakur, Adarsh Kumar Goel, R. Banumathi
1
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.(S). 2394 OF 2014
(Arising out of SLP(Crl.) No(s).1472 of 2012)
SUKHDEV SINGH @ KAKU AND ORS Appellant(s)
VERSUS
STATE OF PUNJAB Respondent(s)
O R D E R
Leave granted.
This appeal arises out of an order dated 14th September, 2011 passed by the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh whereby Crl.Appeal No.836-SB/2003 filed by the appellants has been dismissed and their conviction and sentence for offences punishable under Sections 498-A, 313 read with Section 109 of the Indian Penal Code affirmed.
The appellants happen to be the husband, the mother-in-law, brother-in-law and sister-in-law of the complainant-Smt.Paramjit Kaur. A complaint alleging commission of offences punishable under Sections 498A, 313 read with Section 109 of the I.P.C. appears to have been filed that led to registration of Crime No.55/96 in the Police Station Gurdaspur, Dist. Gurdaspur. Among other allegations levelled against the appellants and Wassan Singh, her father-in-law, was Signature Not Verified Digitally signed by an allegation that she was harassed by the entire family for Mahabir Singh Date: 2014.11.13 16:41:21 IST Reason: dowry and that the demands for articles like a colour T.V., a refrigerator, a motor-cycle, a golden kada etc. were raised by 2 the appellants. She also accused the appellants of having forced her to undergo an abortion on 10th April, 1996, at Gurdaspur, what is called Laxmi Hospital. The abortion, it was alleged, was forced upon the complainant as the family did not want a child out of the wedlock unless their dowry demands were satisfied by the complainant and her family. Completion of the investigation led to filing of a charge-sheet before the competent court. In support of its version the prosecution led evidence comprising statements of, among others, the complainant, Dr. Aruna Bahri (PW-2), Jagir Singh (PW-3), Kewal Krishan (PW-4), Ajit Singh (PW-5), Smt.Deepo (PW-6), Dalbir Singh (PW-7) and the investigating officers concerned. The trial court eventually came to the conclusion that the charges framed against the appellants had been proved by the prosecution and accordingly convicted the appellants for offences punishable under Sections 498A, 313 read with Section 109 of the I.P.C. The other three accused persons viz. Wassan Singh, father-in-law of the complainant, Gurdev Singh and Rajwinder Kaur, mentioned in the charge-sheet, were however acquitted by the trial court. The trial court besides a fine of Rs.500 on each count, sentenced the appellants to undergo imprisonment for a period of 2 years under Section 498A and 3 years under Section 313 read with Section 109 of the I.P.C. An appeal preferred against the judgment and order passed by the trial court before the High Court of Punjab and Haryana having 3 failed, the appellants have filed the present appeal to assail their conviction and the sentence awarded to them. We have heard learned counsel for both the parties who have taken us through the orders passed by the courts below as also the depositions of the witnesses, examined at the trial. There is, in our opinion, no real or compelling reason for us to take a view different from the one taken by the courts below concurrently, especially when there is sufficient evidence to support the conclusion that the appellants indeed had harassed the complainant for dowry and that she was forced to undergo an abortion. It is true that the doctor who conducted the abortion was not examined at the trial but that does not make any material difference in view of credible evidence adduced by the prosecution at the trial that such a procedure was indeed carried out in the Laxmi Hospital at Gurdaspur. Having said that, we are of the view that the sentence awarded to the appellants can be modified. We say so because the incident in-question is of the year 1996. We are also informed by learned counsel for the appellants and even the trial court's order mentions it that the parties have parted company and have contracted marriages and are living separately with their respective spouses. We are also told that while the appellant-Sukhdev Singh, former husband of the complaint, has undergone imprisonment for a period of eight months, the remaining three appellants have undergone imprisonment for a 4 period of six months each. That period should, in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case and given a long time that has elapsed since the incident, suffice.
We accordingly allow this appeal but only in part and to the extent that while the conviction of the appellants for the offences punishable under Sections 498A and 313 read with Section 109 of the I.P.C. shall stand affirmed, the sentence awarded to them by the courts below shall stand reduced to the period already undergone by them. Sentence of fine shall however remain unaltered. As the appellants are on bail, their bail bonds shall stand discharged.
.......................J (T.S. THAKUR) .......................J (ADARSH KUMAR GOEL) .......................J (R. BANUMATHI) NEW DELHI DATED 11th NOVEMBER, 2014.
5
ITEM NO.7 COURT NO.2 SECTION IIB
S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No(s). 1472/2012
(Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated 14/09/2011 in CRLA No. 836/2003 passed by the High Court Of Punjab & Haryana At Chandigarh) SUKHDEV SINGH @ KAKU AND ORS Petitioner(s) VERSUS STATE OF PUNJAB Respondent(s) (with office report)(For Final Disposal) Date : 11/11/2014 This petition was called on for hearing today. CORAM :
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T.S. THAKUR HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ADARSH KUMAR GOEL HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE R. BANUMATHI For Petitioner(s) Mr. Satinder S. Gulati,Adv.
Mrs. Kamaldeep Gulati,Adv.
For Respondent(s) Mr. Sanchar Anand,Adv.
Mr. Kuldip Singh,Adv.
UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following O R D E R Heard.
Leave granted.
In terms of the signed order, this appeal is allowed in part:
“We accordingly allow this appeal but only in part and to the extent that while the conviction of the appellants for the offences punishable under Sections 498A and 313 read with Section 109 of the I.P.C. shall stand affirmed, the sentence awarded to them by the courts below shall stand reduced to the period already undergone by them. Sentence of fine shall however remain unaltered. As the appellants are on bail, their bail bonds shall stand discharged.” (MAHABIR SINGH) (VEENA KHERA) COURT MASTER COURT MASTER (Signed order is placed on the file)