Crl Revision No. 2130 of 2002 -1- In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh Crl Revision No. 2130 of 2002 Date of Decision:December 07 , 2009 Jeet Mal and others ---Petitioners versus State of Haryana ---Respondent Coram: HONBLE MR. JUSTICE GURDEV SINGH *** Present: Mr.Ashish Handa, Advocate, for the petitioners Mr.Raja Sharma, Asstt. Advocate General, Haryana Mr. Suveer Sheokand, Advocate for the complainant *** GURDEV SINGH, J. This revision has been preferred by Jeet Mal, Ram Niwas, Shamsher Singh and Krishna Kumar petitioners -accused against judgment dated 22.10.2002 passed by Sh. R.S.Bagri, Additional Sessions Judge-II, Jind, dismissing the appeal preferred against the judgment dated 13.10.2000 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Jind, vide which he convicted these petitioners for the offence under Section 498-A read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced them to Crl Revision No. 2130 of 2002 -2- undergo rigorous imprisonent for a period of one year and to pay a fine of Rs. 1000/- each and in default thereof to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one month. The facts in brief are that Bimla-PW-2 was married to Krishan Kumar - petitioner, who is the son of Jit Ram and other petitioners are his brothers. At the time of marriage, Sultan Singh-complainant, PW-1, father of Bimla, had given dowry to them as per his capacity and still they had been demanding more dowry in the form of scooter, fridge and colour T.V. In fact, the petitioners wanted to perform the second marriage of Krishan Kumar after eliminating Bimla. The complainant tried to approach the panchayat of the village of the petitioners but that had no effect on them. They started treating Bimla with cruelty on the ground of dowry. The complaiant got lodged the FIR against them. The investigation was conducted and in the course thereof, statements of the witnesses were recorded. Sufficient evidence was collected against the petitioners and accordingly, the police report was submitted against them under Section 173 Cr.P.C. before the learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, who charged them for the offence under Section 498-A read with Section 34 IPC. The prosecution examined Sultan Singh-complainant-PW-1, Bimla, PW-2, Mahendro, PW-3, C. Mahabir Singh PW-4, Rishi Ram, PW-5 and Mehar Singh, PW-6 against the petitioners and thereafter, their statements were recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. in which all the incriminating circumstances were put to them in order to enable them to explain the same. They denied those circumstances and pleaded their innocence. In defence evidence, some documents were produced. Learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class after going through the evidence and hearing the learned defence Crl Revision No. 2130 of 2002 -3- counsel for the accused and public prosecutor for the State, convicted and sentenced the petitioners for the aforesaid offence. The petitioners preferred an appeal against the judgment of conviction and sentence but the same was dismissed by learned Additional Sessions Judge. Notice of the revision was given to the State. I have heard learned defence counsel for the accused and Assistant Advocate General, Haryana for the State and have carefully gone through the records of the case. During the arguments, learned defence counsel only challenged the order of sentence passed by learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class. He argued that Ram Niwas and Jit Ram-petitioners are in the Army and as a result of the order of sentence, they are bound to suffer so far as their service record is concerned. They have been denied the benefit of probation by the learned trial court on flimsy grounds and keeping in view the maximum sentence provided for the offence, for which they have been convicted, they should have been granted the benefit of probation. On the other hand, it has been submitted by Assistant Advocate General, Haryana that sound reasons were recorded by learned Judicial Magistrate for refusing the benefit of probation and there is no ground to differ with that reasoning. Admittedly, the case of the petitioners could have been dealt with under Section 360 Cr.P.C. as the offence under Section 498-A IPC is punishable with imprisonment which may extend to three years. According to Section 361 of the Code, reasons were required to be recorded for refusing that benefit. Learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, did record those reasons. According to him, it is necessary to deter such Crl Revision No. 2130 of 2002 -4- like persons in the society to avoid all such types of offences in the society, which are increasing day by day. No doubt, no previous conviction was proved against the petitioners. However, keeping in view the nature of the offence it is not expedient to release them on probation. The women who belong to weaker section of the society, are being subjected to cruelty and harrasment by the in-laws and such like incidents are on the increase. No doubt, reformatory theory is to be adopted by the Courts but that cannot be applied to all the cases. Such like offences are being committed within four walls of the house of the in-laws and it is the foremost duty of the courts to protect the girls, who after their marriage are supposed to adjust themselves in the families which are stranger to them. The in-laws are required to keep those girls with love and affection and not to subject them to cruelty or harrasment under the greed of dowry or more dowry. The courts are not to come to the rescue of those perosns who fail in their duty. Such like offences must be dealt with deterrently. The trial court did not commit any illegality while refusing the benefit of probation to the petitioners. I do not find any ground to interefere with the order of sentence passed by learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class and upheld by learned Addl. Sessions Judge. This revision is dismissed accordingly. (GURDEV SINGH) JUDGE December 07, 2009 PARAMJIT `