Criminal Revision No. 1243 of 2003 1 In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana, at Chandigarh. Criminal Revision No. 1243 of 2003 Date of Decision: 9.2.2010 Lakhan Lal …Petitioner Versus State of Haryana …Respondent CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA. Present: Mr. R.N. Lohan, Advocate for the petitioner. Ms. Hemlata Balhara, Assistant Advocate General, Haryana, for the State. Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia, J. (Oral) Lakhan Lal was married with Sudesh Kumari, complainant, on 30.10.1990, as per Hindu Rites and Ceremonies at Tohana. It was alleged that parents of Sudesh Kumari had given sufficient dowry to the accused. However, no child was born from the wedlock. The members of the family of petitioner were not satisfied with the dowry given. They used to maltreat and harass the complainant for bringing inadequate dowry and were also demanding Rs.50,000/- as cash. It is stated that the petitioner-husband also used to give beating to the wife. The above said FIR was investigated. Report under Section 173 Cr.P.C. was submitted. The appellant along with his family members were charged for Criminal Revision No. 1243 of 2003 2 an offence under Sections 498-A, 406 and 506 IPC. The complainant aggrieved wife Sudesh Kumari, appeared as PW.1. Her testimony was corroborated by Parshotam Dass PW.2, and Subhash Chander PW.3. The trial Court placed implicit reliance on witness Sudesh Kumari PW.1, Parshotam Dass PW.2 and Subhash Chander PW.3, and held that offence under Sections 498-A, 406 and 506 IPC is made out against the petitioner. However, brothers, sister and mother, who were also tried along with the petitioner, were acquitted. The trial Court sentenced the petitioner to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years and fine of Rs.500/- for offence under Section 498-A IPC. In default of payment of fine, to undergo simple imprisonment for two months. The petitioner was also sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years for offence under Sections 406 and 506 IPC. All the sentences were ordered to run concurrent. Aggrieved against the order of trial Court, petitioner filed an appeal. The Appellate Court dismissed the appeal, upheld the conviction and maintained the sentence. Mr. R.N. Lohan, Advocate, appearing for the petitioner, submits that since the two Courts below, after appreciating the evidence, have relied upon the testimony of PW.1 Sudesh Kumari, PW.2 Parshotam Dass and PW.3 Subhash Chander, he is conscious that this Court, while exercising revisional jurisdiction, will not tread on the path of re-appreciation and re-appraisal of the evidence. However, counsel for the petitioner has submitted that in the present case, marriage of the petitioner was performed with Sudesh Kumari in the year 1990. About Criminal Revision No. 1243 of 2003 3 20 years are going to elapse. It is submitted that the petitioner has undergone about five and a half months of his actual sentence. Counsel further submits that the petitioner is also ready and willing to compensate the estranged wife. This Court is of the view that sending the petitioner behind the bars, at this stage, will serve no useful purpose, however, if some compensation is granted to the estranged wife, she can have some amount to meet her two ends. Therefore, taking into consideration protracted trial and the fact that there will be no justification to send the petitioner behind the bars after two decades, this Court is of the view that sentence awarded upon the petitioner, on all the three counts, is reduced to six months rigorous imprisonment and sentence of fine is enhanced to Rs.35,000/-. The amount of fine so deposited will be disbursed to Sudesh Kumari PW.1, aggrieved wife. In case, the amount of fine is not deposited, petitioner shall undergo rigorous imprisonment for six month in default. With the modifications in the sentence awarded upon the petitioner, present revision petition is disposed of. (Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia) Judge February 9, 2010 “DK”