IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Criminal Revision No. 729 of 2004 Date of decision: September 30, 2010 Suresh Kumar .. Petitioner Vs. State of Haryana .. Respondent Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice A.N. Jindal Present: Mr. S.S. Kaliraman, Advocate for Mr. B.S. Rana, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. J.S. Rattu, DAG, Haryana for the respondent A.N. Jindal, J Assailed in this petition is the judgment dated 15.3.2004 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Panipat, dismissing the appeal filed by the accused-petitioner (herein referred as, 'the accused') against the judgment dated 5.8.2003 passed by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Panipat, convicting and sentencing him to undergo simple imprisonment for six months and to pay fine of Rs.1000/- under Section 498-A IPC, the accused Balwan, Salochna and Mahabir were acquitted of the charges framed against them. However, accused Dharameli was acquitted of the charges framed against her by the Appellate Court. As such, accused Suresh Kumar (husband) alone has come up in revision. At the very outset, without assailing the findings of conviction, learned counsel has submitted that he being the first offender and having undergone few days of the substantive sentence prayed for taking a lenient view on the quantum of sentence. Heard. Having examined the impugned judgment, the evidence appears to have been appreciated in the right perspective. No illegality much less irregularity or perversity has been detected or pointed out warranting interference by this Court. As such, no exception to the judgment of conviction could be made out at this revisional stage. Now coming to the quantum of sentence, it may be observed that marriage between the parties took place on 21.3.1995. However, the marriage went in rough weather and ultimately, the instant case was got Criminal Revision No. 729 of 2004 -2- registered in the year 1999. The accused has old parents to support and has already suffered a lot due to the protracted proceedings pending against him since then and also due to broken marriage, however, he is ready to compensate the complainant. No bad antecedents have come on record in order to dub him as habitual offender. As such, I am of the considered opinion that ends of justice would be met if some leniency is extended to him. Resultantly, while dismissing the petition, sentence passed against the petitioner is modified to the extent that he be released on probation under Section 4(1) of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 on his executing a bond in the sum of Rs.5,000/- with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court for a period of one year within which period he shall continue to be of good behaviour and keep peace and in case of breach of conditions of the bond, he will be ready to serve sentence as and when called for. However, the fine is converted into costs of litigation. He is also burdened to pay a sum of Rs.15,000/- as compensation to be paid to the complainant- wife, within three months from today failing which this petition would be treated as dismissed in toto. Copy of the judgment be sent to the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Panipat for compliance. September 30, 2010 (A.N. Jindal) deepak Judge