Criminal Revision No. 2066 of 2010(O&M) 1 In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh Criminal Revision No. 2066 of 2010(O&M) Date of decision: 2.8.2010 Amarjeet Singh @ Amarjit Singh ......Petitioner Versus State of Punjab and another .......Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SABINA Present: Mr.A.S.Barnala, Advocate, for the petitioner. **** SABINA, J. Amarjit Singh and Shanti Devi were convicted for an offence under Section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code (“IPC” for short), vide judgment dated 3.2.2010 passed by the Judicial Magistrate, Ist Class, Barnala. Vide order of the even date they were sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of two years with a fine of Rs.1,500/- each. Aggrieved by the same, they preferred an appeal. Vide judgment dated 15.7.2010 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Barnala, appeal qua Shanti Devi was allowed and she was acquitted of the charge framed against her, whereas, the appeal qua Amarjit Singh was dismissed. Hence, the Criminal Revision No. 2066 of 2010(O&M) 2 present revision petition by petitioner Amarjit Singh. Prosecution case, as noticed by the Appellate Court in para Nos. 2 to 4 of its judgment, is reproduced herein below:- “2. The prosecution story in nutshell is that a complaint Ex.PA was moved by Sneh Lata t the S.S.P, Barnala for the offences under Sections 406/498-A of the IPC by pleading that her marriage was solemnized with Amarjit Singh on 29.6.01. At that time her parents had spent an amount of Rs.2 lacs on the marriage, beyond their capacity. Her husband is a Constable in the Punjab Police having No.95/CTS, Bahadargarh. It is alleged that after 15 days of marriage her husband Amarjit Singh, her mother-in-law Santi Devi, her father-in-law Sarup Singh, her Jeth Parveen Kumar, her Jethani Gurmeet Kaur and her Dewar Raj Kumar started taunting her for bringing insufficient and inferior quality of dowry articles and not bringing motor cycle and brought lesser gold. It is alleged that when she told that her father is a poor person and is not in a position to meet these demands, she was given severe bearings and after 2-3 months of the marriage, when she was pergnant, she was taken by her husband, mother-in-law, Jeth, Jethani and father-in-law in connivance with each other and forced her to take some medicine due to which she was aborted. It is further Criminal Revision No. 2066 of 2010(O&M) 3 alleged that on 9.1.02, she was deserted by her husband with a demand of Rs.1,25,000/- golden kara and Chain and a motor cycle. Thereafter, on 15.1.02 her husband took her with him but on 16.1.02, when they were going to Rampura Phul, on the way the demand was reagitated and she was abused by him. He stopped his scooter to purchase liquor but the liquor was not available at that linquorvend. Thereafter, she was taken near the canal bridge and took the scooter in the irrigation canal but she fell off the scooter and her husband fell down alongwith the scooter in the said irrigation canal and then she raised the alarm and Amarjit Singh alongwith the scooter were taken out of the canal and she was taken to the matrimonial place. 3. It was alleged that on 9.2.02, when there were elections, Amarjit Singh took the rifle and he put the rifle on her neck to kill her but as the weapon was official weapon, he could not do so. Thereafter, he threatened to kill her with a revolver of his friend and she was given severe beatings by him, she was dragged to a room and his family members tried to put some poisonous substance but she saved herself and thereafter she was given beatings by them. 4. It was alleged that on 24.2.02, she was Criminal Revision No. 2066 of 2010(O&M) 4 given severe bearings in the courtyard of the house by Amarjit Singh. Her mother-in-law dragged her from her hair, her Jethani started giving beatings to her with her chapels and she was turned out of the matrimonial home by her mother-in-law, Jeth and Dewar after giving beatings with a demand of Rs.1,25,000/- and since then she is residing with her parents. It was prayed that an action be taken against them.” After hearing learned counsel for the petitioner, I am of the opinion that the present petition deserves dismissal. Both the Courts below have thoroughly examined the evidence led on record and have held that the petitioner was guilty of an offence under Section 498-A IPC. The case was registered on the basis of a complaint moved by Sneh Lata-complainant. She pleaded that her husband-petitioner had been raising a demand of Rs.1,25,000/-. On 9.1.2002, she was left at her parental house. On 16.1.2002, while complainant and her husband-petitioner were going to Rampura Phul, the demand of Rs.1,25,000/- was again raised and the complainant was abused by her husband. The complainant was taken near a canal bridge and her husband drove the scooter into the canal. The complainant, however, fell off the scooter, whereas, the petitioner fell in the canal along with the scooter. The petitioner was got rescued on an alarm raised by the complainant. The petitioner again tried to kill the complainant with a double barrel gun Criminal Revision No. 2066 of 2010(O&M) 5 and by trying to administer some poisonous substance to her. On 25.2.2002, the petitioner gave beatings to the complainant and she was thrown out of the matrimonial home. The complainant, while appearing in the witness-box, duly corroborated her version. In these circumstances, both the Courts below rightly came to the conclusion that the complainant had been treated with cruelty by the petitioner. The petitioner had maltreated the complainant on account of demand of dowry. Hence, no ground for interference by this Court is made out. Accordingly, this petition is dismissed. (SABINA) JUDGE August 02, 2010 anita