Criminal Revision No. 781 of 2002 1 In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana, at Chandigarh. Criminal Revision No. 781 of 2002 Date of Decision: May 5, 2010 Bhajan Singh and Another …Petitioners Versus Simarjit Kaur …Respondent CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA. Present: Mr. Gurvinder Singh Dhillon, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. Sandeep Arora, Advocate for the respondent. Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia, J. The present revision petition has been preferred by Bhajan Singh and his brother Kashmir Singh Giani, who were tried in a private complaint bearing No. 62 dated 20.8.1996, along with Dalip Kaur, their mother. The complaint was instituted by Simarjit Kaur divorced by Bhajan Singh. The Court of Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Barnala, vide its judgment dated 27.2.2001, held both the petitioners along with Dalip Kaur guilty for the offence under Section 406 IPC and vide a separate order of even date, they were sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of three years each. Aggrieved against the judgment of conviction and order of Criminal Revision No. 781 of 2002 2 sentence, the petitioners along with their mother filed an appeal. The Appellate Court, vide its order dated 6.4.2002, upheld the conviction of all the accused, however, ordered release of Dalip Kaur on probation of good conduct for a period of one year. The Appellate Court reduced the sentence awarded upon the petitioners from three years to one and a half year. Hence, both the petitioners have filed the present revision petition. Complainant Simarjit Kaur averred in the complaint that she was married with Bhajan Singh in the month of October 1991 in village Badbar, Tehsil Barnala. At the time of her marriage, her parents and brothers entrusted seven bedclothes, seven quilts, seven mattresses, seven chadras, one Petti, 51 utensils of brass and steel, one electric iron, one electrical blender, 18 suit lengths, five blankets, eight khes, double bed, one table, four chairs, two tolas of gold and Rs.5,100/- in cash to Dalip Kaur. The above said articles were entrusted to the accused as istri dhan with a promise that as and when required by the respondent/complainant, the same shall be provided to her. In October 1992, from the womb of the complainant and the loins of accused/petitioner Bhajan Singh, one daughter was born. In November 1992, Kashmir Singh, brother of the complainant, along with customary gifts and Rs.10,000/- went to the house of the accused, at that time Bhajan Singh and Dalip Kaur demanded Rs.10,000/- and a scooter in choochak (a ceremony performed at the time of birth of a child). The complainant had filed a petition under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1954 (hereinafter referred to as “1954 Act”) against petitioner No.1 Bhajan Singh, on 4.4.1994. She stated that when the istri dhan was Criminal Revision No. 781 of 2002 3 demanded by her, the accused had refused to return the same. The complaint was instituted in August 1996. On 29.4.2000, the Court of Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Barnala, charged the petitioners along with Dalip Kaur as under:- “1. That you accused Dalip Kaur in the month of October 1991 in the area of village Badbar, Police Station Dhanaula were entrusted with 7 beddings, 7 quilts, 7 mattress, 7 carpets, 7 bed sheets, one peti, 51 utensils of brass, one electric iron, one Madhani (Churner), 18 suits, 5 blankets, 8 khesies, double bed, one big table with four chairs, 2 tolas of gold in the shape of ear rings and ring and lady's golden bangle with Rs.5100/- as shagan by parents and brother of complainant Simarjit Kaur with a promise to give the same to complainant for her use as and when she demands and you have misappropriated the same and thereby committed an offence punishable u/s 406 of IPC and within cognizance of this Court. 2. Secondly you accused No.1 and 3 were entrusted remaining articles of Istri Dhan with a promise to give the same to complainant for her use and you misappropriated the same and you thereby committed an offence punishable u/s 406 of IPC and within cognizance of this Court”. The accused/petitioners denied the charge and claimed trial. Criminal Revision No. 781 of 2002 4 In support of the averments made in the complaint, respondent Simarjit Kaur examined herself as PW.1, Hardev Singh as PW.2, Balbir Singh as PW.3 and Kashmir Singh as PW.4. Thereafter, the statements of accused were recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. All the incriminating evidence was put to them. They denied the same and pleaded false implication. In defence, they have examined Amar Singh as DW.1, Ajit Singh as DW.2 and Shamsher Singh as DW.3. They all stated that the marriage between petitioner No.1 Bhajan Singh and respondent Simarjit Kaur was simple and no article of dowry was entrusted to the accused. It has come in the judgment rendered by the trial Court that the marriage between complainant Simarjit Kaur and her husband petitioner No.1 Bhajan Singh was dissolved by a decree of divorce passed on 3.2.1996. The present complaint was filed six months thereafter on 20.8.1996. Both the Courts below came to the conclusion that the dowry articles were entrusted to the accused and the same being istri dhan was not returned by them and, thus, they committed an offence punishable under Section 406 IPC. A perusal of the charge framed against the petitioners reveals that Dalip Kaur was entrusted specific dowry articles. Petitioner No.2 Kashmir Singh is the elder brother of petitioner No.1 Bhajan Singh. A further perusal thereof reveals that when the charges were drawn against the accused on 29.4.2000, petitioner No.2 was aged about 45 years, whereas petitioner No.1 Bhajan Singh was aged about 30 years. Thus, Kashmir Singh was 15 years elder to the husband of the complainant. No specific dowry article has been entrusted to him. The Criminal Revision No. 781 of 2002 5 elder brother of the husband of the complainant will be least interested in the dowry articles. Thus, this Court is of the view that benefit of doubt can be extended to Kashmir Singh, accused/petitioner No.2. Hence, the revision petition qua petitioner No.2 Kashmir Singh is accepted. The conviction and sentence, awarded to him, is set aside and he is acquitted of the charges. The marriage of the complainant was solemnized with petitioner No.1 Bhajan Singh in October 1991 and the same was dissolved in the year 1996. He is in the corridors of the Court for the last about 14 years. A perusal of the allegations, levelled in the complaint, reveals that two tolas of gold and Rs.5,100/-, in cash, were entrusted to mother of petitioner No.1 Bhajan Singh. He was taken into custody on 6.4.2002 and was ordered to be released on bail by this Court on 30.5.2002. Therefore, he has undergone about one month and 24 days out of three years' sentence awarded to him. Taking into consideration, the aforementioned facts, this Court is of the view that since petitioner No.1 Bhajan Singh has suffered mental pain and agony of protracted trial of more than 14 years, no useful purpose will be served by sending him behind the bars, at this stage. Under the circumstances, explained above, sentence of three years, awarded to petitioner No.1 Bhajan Singh, is reduced to that of already undergone, however, sentence of fine is enhanced to Rs.20,000/-. The amount of fine, so deposited, shall be paid as a compensation to the complainant. In case, the amount of fine is not deposited, he shall undergo six months rigorous imprisonment. Criminal Revision No. 781 of 2002 6 The petition qua petitioner No.1 Bhajan Singh stands disposed of. (Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia) Judge May 5, 2010 “DK”