Crl. Rev. No. 908 of 2005 (O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH -.- Crl. Rev. No. 908 of 2005 (O&M) Date of decision:- 28.2.2011 Paramjit Singh ... Petitioner Versus State of Punjab ... Respondent CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GURDEV SINGH Present:- Mr. V.K.Sandhir, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. P.S.Paul, DAG, Punjab. Gurdev Singh, J (oral) This revision petition has been preferred by the petitioner/accused, Paramjit Singh, against the judgment dated 28.4.2005 passed by Sh. G.S.Saran, Addl. Sessions Judge, Amritsar, vide which he dismissed the appeal preferred by this accused against the conviction and sentence recorded by the Judicial Magistrate, Ist Class, Tarn Taran. The facts, in brief, are that Sukhraj Kaur-complainant (PW1) was married to Paramjit Singh-petitioner/accused about 1-1/4 years back. However, no child was born out of that wedlock. On 28.5.1999, Sukhraj Kaur-complainant made her statement Ex.PA before Jasbir Singh SI on the basis of which FIR was registered against Paramjit Singh and other accused under Section 406, 498-A, 506/34 IPC. She narrated therein that since the date of the marriage, her husband and his parents Surinder Kaur and Jagir Singh had started taunting her as to what had been brought by her in the Crl. Rev. No. 908 of 2005 (O&M) -2- dowry. Surinder Kaur used to say that scooter and two buffaloes should have been given by way of dowry and as such she cannot live in the matrimonial home. She sent a message to her parents, upon which they, while accompanied by other respectables of the village including Subeg Singh-Sarpanch, came to the house of the accused. All of them gave a piece of advice to her and her-in-laws. After two months the accused again started harassing her and she disclosed all those facts to her mother when she came to meet her. She was taken by her mother to her parents house where she stayed for 2/2-1/2 months. On the assurance given by Subhash Singh-husband of sister of her father, she was again sent to her in-laws house. On the night of 23.5.1999, Paramjit Singh and Surinder Kaur put a dupatta around her neck and started pulling the same and also threatened to kill her. Both those accused were being instigated to commit that act by her father-in-law, Jagir Singh. In a secret manner she sent a message to Subhash Singh, who came to her on 24.5.1999 and was asked by Paramjit Singh to arrange for scooter and Rs.50,000/- in cash. Subhash Singh was compelled to take her with him to her parents house. Thereafter, talks about the compromise have been going on, which could not materialise and ultimately she approached the police. The investigation was conducted by Jasbir Singh SI, who proceeded to the place of occurrence and after inspecting the same prepared the rough site plan PW7/A whith correct marginal notes. Baldev Singh produced before him the bills etc, regarding the expenses incurred by the parents of the complainant on her marriage and those were taken into possession vide Ex. PW3/A. On the search of the house of the accused the dowry articles were recovered, which were taken Crl. Rev. No. 908 of 2005 (O&M) -3- into possession vide Ex.PW7/B. The gold ornaments were taken into possession vide Ex.P1. In the course of investigation all the three accused were arrested and after the completion thereof the challan was put in before the Judicial Magistrate, Ist Class, Tarn Taran, who found sufficient grounds for presuming that accused committed offences punishable under Sections 406, 498-A, 506 read with Section 34 IPC. They were charged accordingly, to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. To prove the guilt, the prosecution examined Sukhraj Kaur-complainant, PW1, Kulwant Kaur PW2, Baldev Singh PW3, Subeg Singh PW4, Kirpal Singh PW5, Simarjit Singh PW6 and Tarsem Singh PW7. After the prosecution closed its evidence the accused were examined by the trial Court and their statements were recorded under Section 313 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 and false implication. It was stated by Paramjit Singh-accused that no such demand of dowry was raised nor the complainant was harassed on that ground. She was not obeying him though he had been making her to understand the right things. The accused were called upon to enter on the defence and they examined Tarlok Singh DW1 in their defence evidence. After going through that evidence and hearing learned Assistant P.P for the State and defence counsel for the accused, the trial Court convicted the accused for the offences under Section 406, 498-A IPC and acquitted them of the offence under Section 506 IPC. They were sentenced as under:- Crl. Rev. No. 908 of 2005 (O&M) -4- Name of the accused Under Section Sentence Jagir Singh 406 IPC 498-A IPC Six month's sentence. Six month's sentence and to pay a fine of `200/- and in default to further undergo sentence for three months Swinder Kaur 406 IPC 498-A IPC Six month's sentence. Six month's sentence and to pay a fine of `200/- and in default to further undergo sentence for three months Paramjit Singh 406 IPC 489-A IPC Six month's sentence. Six month's sentence and to pay a fine of `200/- and in default to further undergo sentence for three months Against that conviction and sentence they preferred an appeal, which was decided by Additional Sessions Judge, Amritsar, vide judgment dated 28.4.2005. Vide that judgment, they were acquitted of the offence under Section 406 IPC. Jagir Singh and Sawinder Kaur were released on probation whereas the sentence of the present petitioner/accused under Section 498-A IPC was maintained. I have heard learned counsel for both the sides. It has been submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner/accused that from the facts proved on the record by the prosecution no offence under Section 498-A IPC is made out. From those facts, it cannot be concluded that there was such wilful conduct on the part of the accused as was likely to drive the complainant to commit suicide. Crl. Rev. No. 908 of 2005 (O&M) -5- He also submitted that in the statement made before the police it was never the case of the complainant that any such dowry was given to the accused or she was being maltreated or harassed on the ground of demand of dowry. Improvements were made in the Court by the complainant by making a statement to that effect and no reliance could have been placed upon that evidence. When there was no such harassment or maltreatment on the ground of demand of dowry, it cannot be said that the accused committed offence under Section 498-A IPC. In support of his argument, he placed reliance on the judgment of Apex Court reported as 2009(3) RCR (Criminal) 866, Bhaskar Lal Sharma Vs. Monica. In the last he submitted that the accused has already undergone imprisonment for more then two months and the sentence of imprisonment so imposed upon him be reduced to the period already undergone. On the other hand, it has been submitted by learned State counsel that from the facts proved on the record by the prosecution it stands proved that accused treated the complainant with cruelty and he was rightly convicted under Section 498-A IPC. For proving cruelty it is necessary that the act so complained or committed by the accused must be in connection with the demand of dowry. Keeping in view the nature of the offence, there is no question of reducing the sentence and in fact the accused has undergone imprisonment only for a period of 1 month and 21 days. The re-appreciation and re-appraisal of the evidence is not permissible in the exercise of revisional jurisdiction. It was for want of evidence of the prosecution for proving the entrustment of any article as dowry that accused was acquitted of the offence under Section 406 IPC. He Crl. Rev. No. 908 of 2005 (O&M) -6- was convicted only under Section 498-A IPC. For constituting that offence the prosecution is only required to prove that the husband treated the women with cruelty and as per the explanation appended to that Section 'Cruetly' means:- i) any wilful conduct which is of such a nature as is likely to drive the woman to commit suicide or to cause grave injury or danger to life, limb or health (whether mental or physical) of the woman; or ii) harassment of the woman where such harassment is with a view to coercing her or any person related to her to meet any unlawful demand for any property or valuable security or is on account of failure by her or any person related to her to meet such demand. Thus harassment on account of the demand of dowry or non- meeting of such a demand is totally independent of the first clause. It is not necessary that the treating of the wife with cruelty must be on account of demand of dowry. The essential ingredients of the offence under Section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code were mentioned in Bhaskar Lal Sharma's case (supra). It was held therein that the essential ingredients are:- 1. A woman must be married. 2. She must be subjected to cruelty. 3. Cruelty must be of the nature of :- (i)any willful conduct as was likely to drive such woman: a. to commit suicide; b. cause grave injury or danger to her life, limb, either mental or Crl. Rev. No. 908 of 2005 (O&M) -7- physical; (ii)harassment of such woman, (1) with a view to coerce her to meet unlawful demand for property or valuable security, (2) or on account of failure of such woman or by any of her relation to meet the unlawful demand, (iii)woman was subjected to such cruelty by: (1) husband of that woman, or (2) any relative of the husband. The facts of that case were altogether different. It is to be seen by the Court as to whether cruely stands proved in the facts and circumstances of a particular case. The allegations were levelled by the complainant in her statement Ex.PA made before the police that all the accused had started taunting her immediately after the marriage on the ground that she had brought insufficient dowry. Her mother-in-law had been saying that she should have been brought scooter and two buffaloes by way of dowry. After her rehabilitation in the house of her in-laws, she was being harassed by the accused as she had been harassed previously. It was on 23.5.1999 that Paramjit Singh and Surinder Kaur put a dupatta around her neck and started pulling the same and gave threats to kill. All those facts were duly reiterated by her in the Court as PW1. No doubt she made improvements while making her statement in the Court, but all those improvements are on the other aspects of the case. It cannot be said that the findings so recorded by the trial Court and upheld by the appellate Court are perverse or illegal. From the facts proved on the record it stands proved that Paramjit Singh after his marriage with the complainant subjected her to cruelty. Thus there Crl. Rev. No. 908 of 2005 (O&M) -8- is no ground to interfere in the findings so recorded by the trial Court and upheld by the appellate Court. The offence under Section 498-A is punishable with three years imprisonment and only six months imprisonment was awarded to the accused by the trial Court, which is already on the lower side. For such like offence, which is committed in the four walls of the house against a totally helpless woman who otherwise requires protection at the hands of her husband and his relatives, no compassion can be shown. There is no ground for reducing the sentence and the revision petition is hereby dismissed. The accused be taken into custody for undergoing the sentence so imposed upon him. Records be returned forthwith. February 28, 2011 (Gurdev Singh) tripti Judge