Criminal Revision No. 1895 of 2001 1 In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana, at Chandigarh. Criminal Revision No. 1895 of 2001 Date of Decision: 25.2.2009 Kuldeep Singh …Petitioner Versus State of Punjab …Respondent CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA. Present: Mr. Rahul Sharma, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Mehardeep Singh, Assistant Advocate General, Punjab, for the State. Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia, J. (Oral) Present revision petition has been preferred by Kuldeep Singh son of Piara Singh. Kuldeep Singh along with Piara Singh and Samitteri Devi. They were tried in a case FIR No. 25 dated 16.6.1996 registered at Police Station Hajipur under Sections 498-A, 323, 324, 34 IPC. The Court of Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Dasuya, convicted and sentenced the accused as under:- S. No. Names of accused Under Sections Sentence awarded 1 Para Singh, Kuldeep Singh and Samitteri Devi 498-A IPC To undergo R.I. for a period of one year and to pay a fine of Rs.1000/- (One thousand only) each. In default of fine, the defaulter shall undergo RI for a period of one month. 2 Kuldeep Singh 324 IPC To undergo RI for a period of one year. 3 Samitteri Devi 324/34 IPC To undergo RI for a period of one year. Criminal Revision No. 1895 of 2001 2 S. No. Names of accused Under Sections Sentence awarded 4 Samitteri Devi 323 IPC To undergo RI for a period of Six months. 5 Kuldeep Singh 323/34 IPC To undergo RI for a period of Six months. All the substantive sentences shall run concurrently. Aggrieved against the same, the accused had filed an appeal which was disposed off by the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Hoshiarpur. The Appellate Court acquitted the accused Kuldeep Singh and Samitteri Devi under Sections 324, 323, 34 IPC. Piara Singh co- accused was acquitted. Appeal of Kuldeep Singh and Samitteri Devi was dismissed with regard to offence under Section 498-A and sentence awarded to them under Section 498-A IPC was maintained. Petitioner was convicted and sentenced under Section 498-A IPC to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year. Counsel for the petitioner at the outset has stated that he will not be able to assail the conviction of petitioner and prayed to this Court that he be released on probation. Counsel further stated that petitioner is an employee in Punjab State Electricity Board and, therefore, in case he is sentenced to one year imprisonment and not released on probation, he is likely to loose his job. Counsel further stated that in the present case FIR was lodged in the year 1996. Petitioner has suffered a protracted trial for more than 13 years. To fortify his submissions, counsel for the petitioner has relied upon a judgment rendered by this Court in Amarjit Singh and Others v. State of Haryana 1995(1) Recent Criminal Reports 625 to urge that this Court had already granted probation to the accused convicted and sentenced under Criminal Revision No. 1895 of 2001 3 section 498-A IPC. Case of the prosecution is that the present petitioner, on 7.12.1990 i.e. after 2½ months of the marriage, started maltreating Paramjit Kaur on the pretext of bringing insufficient dowry. Paramjit Kaur was harassed for bringing more dowry. Demand of scooter was raised by Samitteri Devi and even it was stated that if the scooter is not given, present petitioner will be re-married. Case of the prosecution is that on 15.6.1996 at about 7.00 A.M. when Paramjit Kaur was present in the kitchen she was given a dang injury by Samitteri Devi and petitioner gave a Datar blow on the head of Paramjit Kaur. The injury suffered by Paramjit Kaur is stated to be simple. Since counsel for the petitioner has very fairly stated that he will not assail the conviction of petitioner and confine his prayer for grant of probation, I am of the view that taking into consideration a protracted trial of more than 12 years, sending the petitioner behind the bars at this stage will serve no useful purpose and the victim of harassment i.e. wife can be adequately compensated, so that amount of compensation to be awarded can take care of day-to-day needs of aggrieved wife to some extent. In the facts and circumstances of the case, petitioner is granted probation subject to payment of compensation of Rs.50,000/- to the wife. The amount shall be deposited in the Court of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Hoshiarpur, which shall be disbursed to the aggrieved wife. Thereafter, the petitioner shall be permitted to furnish necessary bonds to the satisfaction of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Hoshiarpur, for Criminal Revision No. 1895 of 2001 4 undergoing period of probation for one year. Petitioner shall maintain good conduct and behaviour during the period of probation. The amount of compensation and the bonds shall be furnished within three months from the receipt of certified copy of the order. Needless to say that probation granted to the petitioner is under the Probation of Offenders Act, 1959, and the petitioner will not be fastened with any disqualification as per provisions of Section 12A of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1959, in view of conviction having been maintained by this Court. With the observations made above, the present revision petition is disposed off. (Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia) Judge February 25, 2009 “DK”