Crl. Rev. No. 118 of 2004 [ Page numbers ] IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA, CHANDIGARH Crl. Rev. No. 118 of 2004 Date of Decision: March 26,2009 Ran Singh and another .........................................................Petitioners Versus State of Haryana .................................................................. Respondent Coram: Hon'ble Mr.Justice Ashutosh Mohunta Present: Mr. S.S. Dinarpur, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. G.S.Wasu, DAG, Haryana. ... ASHUTOSH MOHUNTA, J. (Oral) The petitioners are aggrieved by the judgment and sentence dated 18.1.1999 passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kurukshetra, and the judgment dated 18.12.2003 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Kurukshetra, vide which the petitioners have been convicted under Section 498-A IPC and have been sentenced to undergo RI for 2 years and to pay a fine of Rs.200/- each and in default of payment of fine, to further undergo RI for one month each. The facts of the prosecution case as gathered from the report submitted under Section 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure are that Bachna Ram son of Mansa Ram of village Landhi, District Kurukshetra, made a complaint to the police wherein it was averred that his daughter Crl. Rev. No. 118 of 2004 [ Page numbers ] Satya Devi was married to Ran Singh according to Hindu Rites on 28.2.1988. He had given sufficient dowry in the marriage of his daughter. However, Ran Singh and his mother Parsi Devi were not satisfied by the dowry given and just after 3-4 days of the marriage started demanding more dowry. It has been averred that Ran Singh and Parsi Devi had demanded a sum of Rs.10,000/-, a Refrigerator and a TV from Satya Devi who was asked to bring the same from her parents i.e. from the complainant. Both the Courts relied upon the statements of the complainant Bachna Ram and the statement of Satya Devi and came to the conclusion that the prosecution has been able to prove its case and that there are specific instances of harassment and demand of dowry from Satya Devi. Satya Devi was also beaten up several times for being unable to bring the dowry as demanded by the accused. On the basis of the entire evidence, the petitioners were convicted under Section 498-A IPC and sentenced to undergo RI for 2 years by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kurukshetra. The appeal filed by the petitioners was also dismissed and the conviction and sentence was upheld. Mr. Dinarpur, counsel for the petitioners, states that he does not wish to challenge the conviction of the petitioners under Section 498-A IPC but a lenient view be taken while sentencing the petitioners. Learned counsel also states that the marriage between Satya Devi and Ran Singh took place on 28.2.1988 and the FIR No.137 in the present case was lodged on 25.5.1990 at Police Station Shahbad, Kurukshetra. It is contended that as almost 19 years have elapsed since the lodging of the FIR against the petitioners, therefore, the sentence of the petitioners be reduced to the one already undergone by them. Learned counsel further submits that a divorce Crl. Rev. No. 118 of 2004 [ Page numbers ] has already taken place between the accused Ran Singh and Satya Devi on 31.1.1991 and thereafter Satya Devi has re-married. Learned counsel also submits that the petitioners have already undergone 3 months of actual sentence. The prayer of the counsel for the petitioner for taking a lenient view while passing the order of sentence has been vehemently opposed by Mr. Wasu, learned DAG, Haryana. Learned counsel submits that the case against the petitioners has been proved beyond any shadow of doubt and it has been found that the petitioner used to not only harass Satya Devi but the petitioners had also demanded dowry and, hence, no leniency should be shown. After hearing the counsel for the parties, I am of the considered opinion that the petitioners have already faced a long and protracted trial of almost 19 years since the registration of a case under Section 498-A IPC against them. A divorce has also taken place between Ran Singh and Satya Devi as far back as in 1991 and, therefore, in these circumstances the petitioners definitely deserve leniency. Resultantly, while upholding the conviction of the petitioners under Section 498-A IPC, I reduce the sentence to the one already undergone by the petitioners. The revision is accordingly disposed of. 26.3.2009 ( ASHUTOSH MOHUNTA ) Rupi JUDGE