Punjab-Haryana High Court
Manjit Singh @ Laddi vs State Of Punjab & Anr on 9 April, 2014
Author: Naresh Kumar Sanghi
Bench: Naresh Kumar Sanghi
Criminal Revision No.3459 of 2013 [1]
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
Criminal Revision No.3459 of 2013
Date of Decision: 09th April, 2014
Manjit Singh @ Laddi
...Petitioner
Versus
State of Punjab & Anr.
...Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NARESH KUMAR SANGHI
Present: Mr.Amit Dhawan, Advocate,
for the petitioner.
Mr.R.S.Randhawa, Additional Advocate
General, Punjab.
Mr.Ashish Aggarwal, Advocate,
for respondent No.2.
Naresh Kumar Sanghi, J.
Challenge in this criminal revision petition is to the judgment dated 24.10.2013 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge (Adhoc) Fast Track Court, Amritsar, whereby the appeal filed by the petitioner challenging his conviction and sentence for the offence punishable under Section 498-A, IPC, was dismissed.
At the time of admission of the criminal revision petition on 07.11.2013, the learned counsel for the petitioner opted not to challenge the conviction of the petitioner in view of the concurrent findings of both the courts below, however, he submitted that in view of the facts and circumstances of the case, the substantive sentence awarded to the petitioner was on higher side, therefore, notice of motion was issued with regard to the quantum of sentence only. In compliance thereof, the respondent-State as well Sharma Seema 2014.04.21 17:31 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh Criminal Revision No.3459 of 2013 [2] as respondent No.2/complainant has put in appearance.
Though learned counsel for the petitioner has confined his submissions with regard to quantum of sentence only but to satisfy the conscience of this Court, the whole material has been re-scanned and learned counsel for the parties have been heard at length.
The brief facts of the case as put forth by the learned counsel for complainant/respondent No.2 are that her marriage was solemnized with the petitioner on 08.12.1996 and out of the said wedlock, two children, namely, Priyanka and Manjot Singh, were born. From the very inception of the marriage, the behaviour and attitude of the petitioner and his parents were not up to mark and he (petitioner) was harassing and treating the complainant with cruelty. Sufficient dowry including gold jewellry, clothes etc. were given to the petitioner and his family members but still they were not satisfied and they harassed and mal-treat respondent No.2/complainant on account of bringing less dowry. Respondent No.2/complainant was even mercilessly beaten at certain occasions and ultimately turned out of the matrimonial home. To settle down her matrimonial alliance with the petitioner, respondent No.2/complainant effected a compromise but in spite of the same, the petitioner did not mend his ways and continued to treat respondent No.2/complainant with cruelty. The petitioner was addicted to alcohol and continued to beat the complainant. At one occasion, he even caused injuries by means of a knife on the person of respondent No.2/complainant. The matter was reported to the police but when no action was initiated then the complainant had no option but to file a complaint before the learned Area Sharma Seema 2014.04.21 17:31 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh Criminal Revision No.3459 of 2013 [3] Judicial Magistrate.
After recording the preliminary evidence, the petitioner and his parents were summoned to face trial. After appearance of the petitioner and his co-accused, respondent No.2/complainant led the pre-charge evidence and thereafter finding a prima-facie case, the charges for the offences punishable under Sections 406 and 498-A, IPC, were framed to which the petitioner and his co-accused pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. In post-charge evidence, the petitioner and his co-accused proposed not to further cross- examine the witnesses, therefore, the evidence led at the time of pre-charge evidence was considered to be sufficient for proceedings further. The statements of the petitioner and his co- accused were recorded in terms of Section 313, Cr.P.C. They denied all the incriminating evidence appearing against them and pleaded innocence. In defence, the petitioner examined Jagjivan Lal, Ex-sarpanch, as DW-1 and thereafter, he closed his defence evidence. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, the learned trial court acquitted the co-accused of the petitioner and also acquitted the petitioner for the offence punishable under Section 406, IPC, but held him guilty for the offence punishable under Section 498-A, IPC, and ordered him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year besides the payment of fine of ` 1,000/- and in default thereof, to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for one month. The fine was deposited by the petitioner before the learned trial court.
Dissatisfied with the judgment of conviction and sentence passed by the learned trial court, the petitioner filed an appeal before the learned Court of Session and that too was Sharma Seema 2014.04.21 17:31 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh Criminal Revision No.3459 of 2013 [4] dismissed vide the impugned judgment dated 24.10.2013 and hence the judgments of both the courts below have been challenged by way of the present criminal revision petition before this Court. After going through the material available on record and hearing the learned counsel for the parties, this Court is satisfied that the judgment of conviction is well based and as such, the learned counsel for the petitioner has rightly opted not to challenge his (petitioner) conviction.
So far as the quantum of sentence is concerned, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the Investigating Agency had not found substance in the allegations levelled by the complainant/respondent No.2, therefore, the complaint was presented before the court below on the same set of allegations; the petitioner is facing prosecution for the last more than nineteen years; the marriage was solemnized on 08th December, 1996 and from the very beginning, the husband and the wife could not live properly due to temperamental differences; two children born out of the said wedlock are residing with the complainant/respondent No.2; in the proceedings under Section 125, Cr.P.C., adequate maintenance has already been awarded to the complainant/ respondent No.2 and the minor children; in view of the on-going litigation, the petitioner has lost his service and now he is an idle person; the petitioner has already suffered incarceration for more than five months and as such, his substantive sentence may be reduced to the period already undergone by him. Learned counsel has also made the submissions that the petitioner is ready to pay the adequate compensation to respondent No.2/complainant.
Learned counsel for the State assisted by Sh.Ashish Sharma Seema 2014.04.21 17:31 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh Criminal Revision No.3459 of 2013 [5] Aggarwal, Advocate, for respondent No.2 submits that the learned trial court as well as the appellate court have already taken a reasonable view while passing the order on quantum of sentence, therefore, no prayer for further reducing the substantive sentence be entertained. They also submit that in view of the cruel behaviour of the petitioner, respondent No.2/complainant has suffered a lot and she has to maintain two minor children. However, they submit that they have no objection if the adequate compensation is awarded in favour of respondent No.2/complainant to be paid by the petitioner.
I have heard the learned counsel for the parties with regard to quantum of sentence and with their able assistance gone through the material available on record and the mitigating circumstances explained by the learned counsel for the petitioner.
The petitioner is facing the agony of prosecution for the last nine years; the two children born out of the wedlock are with the complainant/respondent No.2; the petitioner who was working as a peon, has lost his service on account of the on-going litigation; he has no means to earn both ends meals; he has a liability to maintain his parents and has already suffered incarceration for more than five months.
In view of the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case, the term of substantive sentence of the petitioner is reduced to rigorous imprisonment for six months. In addition, the petitioner is directed to pay a compensation of ` 25,000/- to respondent No.2/ complainant. The amount of compensation awarded by this Court shall be deposited with the learned trial court within two months of passing of this order failing which, the Sharma Seema 2014.04.21 17:31 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh Criminal Revision No.3459 of 2013 [6] order of sentence passed by the learned courts below shall enure. As soon as the amount of compensation is deposited by the petitioner, the learned trial court shall issue a notice to respondent No.2 for withdrawal of the same in accordance with norms. The amount of fine imposed by the learned trial court on the petitioner and stated to be deposited by him shall be treated as costs of the proceedings.
Except the above modifications in the quantum of sentence, and awarding the compensation to respondent No.2/complainant, the present criminal revision petition fails and the same is dismissed.
April 09, 2014 (Naresh Kumar Sanghi)
seema Judge
Sharma Seema
2014.04.21 17:31
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
Chandigarh