Crl.Revision No. M-1461 of 2008 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA, CHANDIGARH Criminal Revision No. 1461 of 2008 Date of Decision: November 11, 2010 Samuel & Others ...........Petitioners Versus State of Punjab and another ..........Respondent Coram: Hon'ble Mrs. Justice Sabina Present: Mr.L.S.Goraya,Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. Amandeep Singh, Additional Advocate General, Punjab. Sabina, J. Petitioners were convicted by the Judicial Magistrate Ist Class Ludhiana for offences under Sections 406, 498-A of the Indian Penal Code (`IPC' for short) vide judgment dated 19.5.2007. Vide order of even date, petitioners were sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year and to pay a fine of Rs.500/- each under Section 406 IPC and they were also sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year each for the offence under Section 498-A IPC.Both the sentences were ordered to run concurrently.Aggrieved by the same, petitioners preferred an appeal and the same was dismissed by the the Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court, Ludhiana vide judgment dated 18.7.2008. Hence, the present revision petition by petitioners. The brief facts of the case, as noticed by the Appellate Court in para 3 of its judgment, are as under:- “3. The complainant has filed the present complaint against the accused person on the allegations that the complainant was married to the accused No.1 on 16.6.1985 in accordance with Crl.Revision No. M-1461 of 2008 2 Christian rites at Village Vinjhwan, Tehsil Batala, District Gurdaspur. At the time of marriage of the complainant with accused No.1, all the accused attended the marriage. The parents of the complainant gave huge dowry in the form of furniture, utensils, clothes and jewellery as detailed in the Annexure A and B attached with the complaint. The complainant was not handed over the said dowry articles on reaching Fatehgarh Churian as directed by the father of the complainant nor the same have been so far given back till today. The accused are also guilty of the offence of cruelty on the allegations that just after one year of the marriage of the complainant with accused no.1, the accused started misbehaving and torturing the complainant as no child was born to the complainant and started forcing the complainant to bring Rs.10,000/- from her parents as the accused No.1 was to start business. When the complainant told the accused that her father had spent beyond his capacity on their marriage and that her parents were not in a position to pay anymore, then the accused gave beatings to the complainant. Thereafter, accused No.1 came to complainant's father and demanded Rs. 10,000/- from him and when he expressed his inability to pay the said amount, the accused no.1 turned her out of their house at Fatehgarh Churian. Just after two weeks of complainant being left to her in law house by her maternal aunt Saidi, accused No. 3 and 4 sprinkled kerosine oil upon the complainant who saved herself by running to her room and bolting it from inside. Sarpanch Jaswant Singh Bedi and Joginder Singh Nabab of Kotia Crl.Revision No. M-1461 of 2008 3 who during these days was acting as Coach of sports were approached by the father of the complainant who were told the said incidence, who then approached and met the accused and advised them that daughter in law is not to be treated like that they advised the accused that they should mend their ways and keep the complainant properly. But inspite of the advises and warnings, the accused did not improve their behaviour towards the complainant rather it deteriorated day to day. It is further averred that the even the birth of male child to the complainant in 1990 did not improve the behaviour of the accused towards the complainant rather it took serious turn which is evident from the fact that just after 21 days after the birth of child, the accused No.3 tried to strangulate him, the grand mother luckily was there who noticed the attempt to kill minor child Slash by accused No. 3 and who raised hue and cry and thus the child was saved. After completion of 1.1/2 months after the birth of Slash, the complainant was brought to Ludhiana where complainant's father was working for the last 27 years in Seiko Steel Rolling Mills, GT Road, Dhandari Kalan, Ludhiana and also living in Ludhiana. The complainant's father wanted to settle accused no.1 at Ludhiana, with that intention they (father of the complainant and father-in-law of accused No.1) purchased Truck bearing registration no. PAT 7087 which after two months of the purchase started to be driven by accused No.1 and since the purchase of the truck accused No.1 lived in the house of complainant's father at Ludhiana along with his in-laws. While living at Ludhiana, the Crl.Revision No. M-1461 of 2008 4 remaining accused also used to meet the complainant, Slash and accused no.1 and the accused were requested and required by the complainant for return of her dowry articles given to them at her marriage by her father but the accused did not respond to the request of the complainant. Rather the accused threatened the complainant with dire consequences in case she continued pressing for the return of her goods.. That after 2.1/2 years of the purchase of the truck complaint' father fell suffering from asthmatic and for treatment he was admitted in CMC hospital, Ludhiana for about a month. In the absence of complainant's father, accused No.1 ran away with abovesaid truck which was later on recovered by ASI Baljinder Singh, Police Station Focal Point, Ludhiana and after recovering the same from accused No.1, accused No.1 alongwith 2/3 persons visited the father of the complainant at his house at Jamalpur where at that time S.Harbans Singh President Khokha Market Ludhiana and Manjit Singh Bedi Sarpanch of Village Vinjhwan Tehsil Batala were also present and accused No.1 retorted that he was prepared to rehabilitate the complainant, provide him a constructed house and truch, when Hardoi Masih (father of the complainant) did not agree to accused No.1 along with 2/3 persons went away threatening that they would see how he rehabilitate his daughter. All these instances clearly disclosed that the accused are guilty of offence under Section 406 IPC as the accused have not returned the dowry articles of the complainant inspite of repeated requests by the complainant and the accused persons have misappropriated the Crl.Revision No. M-1461 of 2008 5 same for their own. The accused are also guilty of cruelty under Section 498-A IPC as the accused have been demanding dowry, beatings and maltreating the complainant and he son as disclosed above.” Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the petitioner No.1 has already undergone the sentence as imposed by the Courts below and has deposited the fine and in these circumstances, he does not press the petition qua petitioner No.1 Dismissed as not pressed qua petitioner No.1 . Learned counsel for the petitioners has not challenged the conviction of the petitioners No. 2 to 4 under Sections 406, 498-A IPC but has submitted that the sentence qua imprisonment of the said petitioners be reduced to already undergone by them . Fine, as imposed by the Trial Court and upheld by the Appellate Court has already been deposited by the said petitioners. The petitioners No. 2 to 4 have undergone about 2½ months of actual sentence. Keeping in view the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioners, it would be just and expedient to reduce the sentence qua imprisonment of the petitioners No. 2 to 4 to already undergone by them. Accordingly, the conviction of the petitioners No.2 to 4 is maintained under Sections 406 and 498-A IPC. However, the sentence qua the imprisonment of the petitioners No. 2 to 4 is reduced to already undergone by them. Petition stands disposed of accordingly. (Sabina) Judge November 11, 2010 arya Crl.Revision No. M-1461 of 2008 6