Punjab-Haryana High Court
Antar Singh vs State Of Punjab And Another on 9 August, 2012
Author: Rameshwar Singh Malik
Bench: Rameshwar Singh Malik
CRR No.712 of 2012 (O&M) 1
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB & HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
CRR No.712 of 2012 (O&M)
Date of decision:9.8.2012
Antar Singh
...Petitioner
Versus
State of Punjab and another
...Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAMESHWAR SINGH MALIK
Present: Mr.G.S.Kaura, Advocate,
for the petitioner.
Mr.Deepak Balyan, Addl.A.G., Punjab
RAMESHWAR SINGH MALIK, J.
The instant petition has been filed by the petitioner against the judgment dated 7.1.2012 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Moga, vide which the appeal of the petitioner against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 21.11.2009, passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Moga, was dismissed, upholding the conviction and sentence of the petitioner.
The complainant-respondent No.2 Karamjeet Kaur set the criminal law into motion by filing complainant No.79 dated 22.5.2002 under Sections 406 and 498-A of Indian Penal Code (for short `IPC) against the present petitioner, his parents and brother. It was alleged that all the accused persons had attended the marriage between the petitioner and the complainant, which was held on 8.4.1992. The CRR No.712 of 2012 (O&M) 2 dowry articles were given to all the accused persons, details whereof were given in para 4 of the complaint. The specific items of dowry were entrusted to particular accused in view of the details given in para 5 to para 8 of the complaint. None of the said items were gifted to the accused. All these articles were meant to be used by the complainant at her matrimonial home. Immediately after her marriage with the petitioner, the accused started demanding motorcycle and more dowry articles. The complainant could not meet the illegal demands of the accused. The complainant demanded her articles for her use but it was denied by the accused persons. Accused No.1- Antar Singh (petitioner herein), used to give severe beatings to the complainant without any reason, as alleged by the complainant. Accused Nos. 2, 3 and 4 used to insult the complainant on account of dowry articles. The accused made the life of the complainant miserable and she was completly isolated from the family. Accused No.1/petitioner filed the divorce petition against the complainant as well as petition for restitution of conjugal rights. But both these petitions were dismissed. It also shows that unwarranted harassment was being caused to the complainant. The complainant was forced to leave the matrimonial home. Thus, levelling the allegations against all the four accused for commission of offences under Sections 406 and 498-A IPC, the above-noted criminal complaint was filed by the complainant against the petitioner, his parents and brother.
The complainant led her preliminary evidence and based CRR No.712 of 2012 (O&M) 3 on that, the accused were summoned to face trial vide order dated 10.4.2003.
After recording pre-charge evidence, the accused were charge sheeted for the offences under Sections 406 and 498-A IPC vide order dated 8.9.2009. The accused pleaded not guilty to the charge and claimed trial. In her post-charge evidence, the complainant produced three witnesses and tendered the documents in her evidence. After closure of post charge evidence led by the complainant, the statements of the accused were recorded under Section 313 of Code of Criminal Procedure, in which they denied all the allegations of the complainant, pleaded innocence and false implication. In defence, they examined Bhura Singh, as DW1 and closed their evidence.
After hearing the parties and examining the evidence led by the parties, the learned trial Court acquitted accused Nos. 2, 3 and 4 i.e. parents of the petitioner and his brother, whereas, the petitioner, being husband and the main accused, was convicted for the offence under Sections 406 and 498-A IPC. Consequently, the petitioner was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one and half years and to pay a fine of Rs.500/- for the offence under Section 498-A IPC. In default of payment of fine, the accused was ordered to undergo further imprisonment for one month. The accused-petitioner was also sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year for the offence under Section 406 IPC. However, both the sentences were ordered to run concurrently. CRR No.712 of 2012 (O&M) 4
Dissatisfied with the above-said judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 21.11.2009 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Moga, the petitioner filed his appeal before the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Moga, which came to be dismissed vide impugned judgment dated 7.1.2012. It is also pertinent to note that the complainant Karamjeet Kaur filed an appeal against the judgment of acquittal qua the above-said three persons i.e. parents of the petitioner and his brother as well as for enhancement of sentence qua the petitioner. However, the appeal filed by the complainant was also dismissed vide impugned judgment dated 7.1.2012.
Feeling aggrieved against the above-said judgments of conviction and order of sentence, the petitioner has approached this Court by way of instant criminal revision petition. That is how, this Court is seized of the matter.
Notice of motion was issued.
Learned counsel for the petitioner, at the very outset, submits that he does not intend to press this petition qua conviction of the petitioner. He further submits that the present petition may be considered only qua quantum of sentence. While highlighting the mitigating circumstances in favour of the petitioner, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner had been facing the mental agony at the hands of the complainant right from 8.4.1992 when the marriage between them took place. The petitioner filed the petition under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 for CRR No.712 of 2012 (O&M) 5 restitution of conjugal rights but the same was dismissed. Thereafter, he also filed a divorce petition seeking divorce from the complainant but the petitioner did not succeed in that also. He also submits that the parties had been living separately much before filing the complaint by the complainant-respondent No.2 on 22.5.2002. Thus, the petitioner had been facing the agony of criminal trial for the last more than 10 years.
The present one was not a case arising out of FIR but on a private complaint filed by the complainant. The complaint came to be filed after 10 years of the marriage. The fact that the parents and brother of the petitioner were found innocent by the learned courts below and were acquitted, also makes the case of the complainant highly doubtful and improbable even against the petitioner. He further submits that the fine imposed by the learned trial Court has already been paid by the petitioner and he has already undergone the actual sentence for about seven months out of the total awarded sentence. Learned counsel, thus, prays that keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the present case, the sentence of the petitioner may be reduced to the period already undergone by him.
In pursuance of the notice of motion having been issued, learned counsel for the State filed the custody certificate dated 14.5.2012 by way of affidavit of M.S.Sidhu, Deputy Superintendent, Sub-Jail, Barnala. It is submitted that since the petitioner has undergone the actual sentence for about 7 months, he does not deserve any leniency in the quantum of sentence and the present CRR No.712 of 2012 (O&M) 6 criminal revision petition is liable to be dismissed.
Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and after going through the record of the case, this Court is of the considered opinion that ends of justice would be adequately met if the sentence of the petitioner is reduced not to the period already undergone by him but to the period of nine months while upholding his conviction and enhancing the fine to the tune of Rs.20,000/-.
The view taken by this Court also finds support from the judgment of Hon'ble the Supreme Court in 2006(4) R.C.R. (Criminal) 645 titled as "R. Soundarajan v. Seed Inspector, Coimbatore and another" .
The relevant observations made by Hon'ble the Supreme Court in R.Soundarajan's case (supra), which can be gainfully followed in the instant case, read as under:-
"26. We have carefully perused the entire evidence and documents on record and heard the learned counsel for the parties at length. On consideration of the totality of the facts and circumstances of this case, particularly in view of the statement made by the learned counsel for the State, in our considered view, the ends of justice would be met, if the sentence of the appellants is reduced to the period already undergone by them. The appellants were released by this Court during pendency of these appeals and they are now not required to surrender. The fine as imposed by the trial Court, if not already paid, would be paid within four weeks from the date of this judgment."
In another case titled as "Umrao Singh v. State of CRR No.712 of 2012 (O&M) 7 Haryana, 1981 AIR (SC) 1723," the Hon'ble Supreme Court observed as under:-
"After hearing counsel for the parties, we are satisfied that this is a case falling under the proviso of Section 16 (1)(a)(i) and therefore, for adequate and special reasons, the sentence lower than the minimum prescribed could be awarded. The High Court itself felt bound to award the minimum sentence but on merits was satisfied that if the legal position warranted the appellant could be given lesser sentence. We are in agreement with the view of the High Court. The appellant/ petitioner is aged about 70 and suffering from asthama illness and has a clean past record. Besides, the percentage of deficiency that was noticed in the milk sold by him was 0.4% in the fat contents.
2. Having regard to these facts, the expression of the view of the High Court was justified. We accordingly reduce the sentence of the appellant to the period already undergone. The sentence, of fine is maintained and we are informed that he has already paid the fine. Since he is already on bail, he should be released forthwith."
Considering the totality of facts and circumstances of the case noted above, the conviction of the petitioner is upheld. However, his sentence is ordered to be reduced to nine months, whereas the fine is enhanced to Rs.20,000/- over and above what he has already paid. The amount of enhanced fine shall be deposited by the petitioner with Registrar (Judicial) of this Court within two months from today. On deposit of the amount of fine, the same shall CRR No.712 of 2012 (O&M) 8 be released in favour of Secretary, Punjab State Legal Services Authority.
It is made clear that in case the enhanced amount of fine is not deposited within the stipulated period, as directed above, this revision petition shall be deemed to have been dismissed and the order of sentence passed by the learned courts below shall stand revived, automatically.
Resultantly with the modification mentioned above, the instant criminal revision petition stands disposed of.
09.08.2012 (RAMESHWAR SINGH MALIK) mks JUDGE