Criminal Revision No. 2050 of 2005 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Criminal Revision No. 2050 of 2005 Date of decision:- 20.12.2010 Billu @ Virender ...Petitioner Versus State of Haryana ...Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.N.JINDAL Present:- Mr. Ram Darshan Yadav, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. J.S. Rattu, DAG Haryana. A.N.JINDAL J.(Oral) This petition has arisen out of the judgment dated 06.10.2005, passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Narnaul, dismissing the appeal against the judgment dated 27/28.5.2005, passed by trial Court at Narnaul, convicting and sentencing the petitioners-accused (hereinafter referred as 'the accused') to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/- under Section 498-A IPC and rigorous imprisonment for one year and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- under Section 406 IPC. In nutshell, the allegations are that on 15.05.1992 appellant- accused was married with complainant-Anita daughter of Banwari lal. She was given sufficient dowry at the time of marriage but the accused and his parents were not satisfied with the articles of dowry given at the time of Criminal Revision No. 2050 of 2005 -2- marriage and started pressurizing and maltreating her for bringing more dowry. She was given beatings number of times. Case against them was registered and investigated, which resulted into charge report under Section 173 Cr.P.C. They were charged under Sections 498-A,406,506,34 IPC to which they pleaded not guilty and opted to contest. The prosecution in order to substantiate the charges examined nine witnesses. When examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C., the accused denied all the incriminating circumstances appearing against them and pleaded their false implication in the case. Three witnesses were examined by the accused persons in their defence. The trial resulted into conviction of the accused Billu @ Virender and acquittal of Suraj Bhan and Gindori. His appeal was also dismissed. Without assailing the judgment of conviction, learned counsel has sought some leniency on the quantum of sentence. Even otherwise, while peeping into the merits of the case, it transpires that both the Courts below have duly appreciated the evidence and there is nothing to mention if the evidence was not properly discussed or there is some manifest error apparent on the record, resulting into miscarriage of justice, warranting interference by this Court. As regards the quantum of sentence, since the day of registration of FIR i.e. 05.4.1996 the accused has been facing agony of trial. Accused is stated to be a poor person having aged parents and only bread winner of the family; the sword of sentence remained hanging over Criminal Revision No. 2050 of 2005 -3- his head for the last fourteen years; he has already undergone about two months of the substantive sentence. After getting divorce, the parties are already remarried and having children. Therefore, under the peculiar circumstances of this case, it would be in the fitness of things to extend some leniency on the quantum of sentence. Resultantly, this petition is dismissed with the modification in the sentence, which is reduced to already undergone without any alteration in the sentence of fine. Copy of the judgment be sent to Chief Judicial Magistrate, Narnaul, for compliance. December 20, 2010 (A.N.JINDAL) Vijay Asija JUDGE