Crl. Revision No. 443 of 2006 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Crl. Revision No. 443 of 2006 Date of decision: April 20, 2011 Jagjit Singh and others ...Petitioners Versus State of Punjab ...Respondent CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GURDEV SINGH Present: Mr. Veneet Sharma, Advocate, for the petitioner. Ms. Gagan Mohini, AAG, Punjab. GURDEV SINGH, J. (Oral) This revision has been preferred by Jagjit Singh, Gurmit Kaur and Gagandeep Singh, petitioners/accused, against the judgment dated 18.2.2006 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Amritsar, vide which he dismissed the appeal preferred by them against the judgment dated 17.1.2003 passed by the JMIC, Amritsar, vide which they, alongwith Harjot Singh, were convicted for the offence under Section 498A IPC and were sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year and to pay a fine of ` 500/- each and in default thereof, to further undergo imprisonment for one month. The facts, in brief, are that the marriage of Mukhwinder Kaur, complainant (PW-2) was performed with Harjot Singh-accused. Jagjit Singh and Gurmit Kaur are related to that accused as his parents and Crl. Revision No. 443 of 2006 2 Gagandeep Singh is related to him as his brother. In the marriage sufficient dowry was given to them and huge expenditure was incurred by the parents of the complainant. After a few months of the marriage, all the accused started raising the demand of more dowry which could not be met by the parents of the complainant and as a result thereof, the accused started committing attrocities on her. She was being given beatings on minor disputes and was being abused by the accused. On 2-3 occasions, she was sent back to her parents and was rehabilitated in her matrimonial home on the intervention of the Panchayats. Harjot Singh was provoked by the other accused to give beatings to the complainant and thereafter he had been giving beatings to her. Even the other accused had also been giving beatings to her. About all these acts of the accused, the complainant made her statement on 6.3.2000 (Ex. PW6/A) before Angrez Singh, ASI (PW-6) and on the basis thereof FIR (Ex. PW6/C) was recorded against all the accused under Section 498A IPC and Sections 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act 1961. In the course of the investigation, father of the complainant produced the wedding card and receipts, vide which dowry articles were purchased. From the possession of Harjot Singh some of the dowry articles were recovered and those were taken into possession, vide recovery memo Ex. PB. In the course of investigation, all the accused were arrested and on completion thereof, challan was put in before the JMIC, who found sufficient grounds for presuming that the accused committed offences punishable under Sections 406 and 498A IPC. They were charged accordingly, to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. To prove the guilt of the accused, the prosecution examined Mukhwinder Kaur, (PW- 1), Kulwant Singh (PW-2), Ajit Singh (PW-3), Harbans Singh (PW-4), Crl. Revision No. 443 of 2006 3 Saroop Singh (PW-5) and Angrej Singh, ASI (PW-6). After the close of the prosecution evidence, the accused were examined and their statements were recorded under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. The incriminating circumstances appearing against them in the prosecution evidence were put to them in order to enable them to explain the same. They denied all those circumstances and pleaded their innocence. It was stated by Harjot Singh that the complainant was beyond his control and had started residing with her parents. The other accused stated that the complainant was not obedient to them, so they got a separate house for her and Harjot Singh. The accused were called upon to enter on their defence and they examined Rakesh Jain (DW-1) in their defence. I have heard learned counsel for both the sides. The finding of conviction so recorded by the trial court and upheld by the appellate court was not assailed by the learned counsel for the petitioner/accused. He submitted that Gagandeep Singh-accused has already died, whereas Jagjit Singh and Gurmit Kaur are old persons of the age more than 60 years and that Harjot Singh has already undergone the sentence so imposed upon him. These accused were not benefited by any such dowry said to have been given at the time of the marriage. They are not previous convicts and keeping in view their old age, the benefit of probation be granted to them. The sentence of imprisonment of only one year was imposed upon Jagjit Singh and Gurmit Kaur, petitioners/accused. It has been brought to the notice of this Court that they have already undergone sentence of imprisonment for a period of 25 days. As per the copy of the order dated 9.11.2005, filed alongwith the present revision, the marriage of Crl. Revision No. 443 of 2006 4 the complainant with Harjot Singh has already been dissolved by the decree of divorce. The petitioners/accused are of old age and it was not the case of the prosecution at any stage that they are previous convicts. Keeping in view all these facts, this Court is of the considered opinion that it is expedient in the interest of justice that they be released on probation under Section 360 of Cr.P.C. Accordingly, this revision is partly allowed. The sentence so imposed upon the accused is set aside and they are ordered to be released on probation under the said section on their executing personal bonds in the sum of `10,000/- each with one surety in the like amount in each case for a period of two years to appear and receive the sentence as and when called upon to do so during that period and to keep peace and be of good behaviour in the meanwhile. They are directed to pay compensation of `20,000/- each, to the complainant for the attrocities inflicted by them on her. The fine, if already deposited, shall be adjusted towards that compensation. The bonds are to be furnished and costs are to be paid/deposited before the trial court within three months of passing of this order, failing which this revision shall be deemed to have been dismissed. Records of the trial court be returned forthwith. April 20, 2011 (GURDEV SINGH ) prem JUDGE Note:- Whether to be referred to reporter Yes/No