IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Criminal Revision No. 1553 of 2009 Date of decision : August 27, 2009 Paramjit Kumar ....Petitioner versus State of Punjab and another ....Respondents Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice L.N. Mittal Present : Mr. RS Bajaj, Advocate, for the petitioner Mr. Gaurav Garg Dhuriwala, AAG Punjab for respondent no. 1 Ms. Sita Devi, respondent no. 2 in person with Ms. Sumanjit Kaur, Advocate, as Legal Aid Counsel L.N. Mittal, J. (Oral) On oral request of learned counsel for the petitioner, name of the petitioner in the memo of parties is corrected as Paramjit Kumar instead of Paramjit Kaur. Paramjit Kumar has filed this revision petition challenging his conviction and sentence by the courts below. Sita Devi respondent no. 2 filed criminal complaint against the petitioner and others alleging that respondent no.2 was married with the petitioner on 26.2.1989 and she was maltreated and given merciless beatings. She was also thrown out of the matrimonial home on 21.7.1991 Criminal Revision No. 1553 of 2009 -2- and the petitioner without legally divorcing the complainant, performed second marriage. Learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Jalandhar vide judgment and order dated 20.3.2008 convicted the petitioner under section 498-A IPC and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year and to pay fine of Rs 500/- and in default thereof to undergo further imprisonment for 15 days. In appeal preferred by the petitioner, learned Additional Sessions Jude, Jalandhar vide judgment dated 30.5.2009 reduced the sentence of imprisonment to six months while upholding conviction. Feeling aggrieved, the petitioner has filed the instant revision petition. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case file. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the petitioner has been convicted only on the ground that he performed second marriage without legally divorcing the complainant-respondent no. 2, although there was Panchayati divorce to dissolve their marriage. The contention cannot be accepted because there is also concurrent finding by both the courts below that the complainant was treated with cruelty during her stay in the matrimonial home by the petitioner. The said finding is based on appreciation of evidence and is not shown to be perverse or illegal so as to warrant interference at the hands of this Court in exercise of revisional jurisdiction. Learned counsel for the petitioner also contended that the complainant was turned out of the matrimonial home on 21.7.1991 and there was Panchayati divorce on 16.9.1991 and still the complaint was filed on Criminal Revision No. 1553 of 2009 -3- 2.12.1996. However, delay in filing the complaint is not sufficient to set aside the conviction, although it may be mitigating circumstance for reduction of sentence. Keeping in view the concurrent finding of guilt of the petitioner by both the courts below based on appreciation of evidence and the said finding being not perverse or illegal, the conviction of the petitioner is upheld. Learned counsel for the petitioner next prayed for reduction in sentence alleging that the petitioner has faced the agony of trial for almost 13 years and the complaint was also filed belatedly as noticed hereinabove. The prayer has been opposed by learned State counsel as well as by learned counsel for respondent no. 2 -complainant. I have carefully considered the rival contentions. Keeping in view all the circumstances including the delay in filing the complaint as well as protracted trial, I am of the considered view that the sentence awarded to the petitioner warrant some reduction. Accordingly, sentence of the petitioner is reduced to imprisonment for four months. With reduction in the sentence as aforesaid, the instant revision petition is disposed of accordingly. ( L.N. Mittal ) August 27, 2009 Judge 'dalbir'