IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Criminal Revision No.1890 of 2004 Date of decision: March 11, 2010 Sarmukh Singh .. Petitioner Vs. State of Punjab .. Respondent Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice A.N. Jindal Present: Mr. Arun Singla, Advocate Amicus Curiae for the petitioner. Mr. C.S. Brar, DAG, Punjab for the respondent. A.N. Jindal, J The accused-petitioner Sarmukh Singh (herein referred as 'the petitioner'), Jagir Singh and Surjit Kaur (none petitioners) were convicted vide judgment dated 29.7.2003 passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ferozepur and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year each under Section 406 IPC; and rigorous imprisonment for one year and to pay fine of Rs.500/- each under Section 498-A IPC. The appeal preferred by them against the said judgment was dismissed, however, Jagir Singh and Surjit Kaur were acquitted of the charges framed against them, whereas, conviction and sentence passed against the petitioner was affirmed. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that the complainant Manjit Kaur (herein referred as 'the complainant') was married with the petitioner on 28th Baisakh, 1994 by way of Anand Karaj ceremony. Huge amount was spent on the marriage. Despite the articles of dowry given to the accused to their capacity, the accused were not satisfied and were placing further demands. A male child was born to the complainant and after the birth of the child, the accused asked the complainant to bring Rs.50,000/- in the Chhuchhak from her parents. On failing to fulfill the demand, the accused harassed and tortured the complainant and turned her out of the house. On the intervention of the Panchayat, the complainant started residing at her in-laws' house, but the accused again started repeating the same behaviour. On 20.2.1999, her mother in law Surjit Kaur and father in law Jagir Singh compelled her to bring Rs.50,000/- and threatened that if Criminal Revision No.1890 of 2004 -2- *** the demand is not fulfilled, she would be killed. Ultimately, on 27.2.1999, the accused after beating the complainant turned her out of the house in the wearing apparel. At that time, the complainant was pregnant. Her requests to rehabilitate in the matrimonial house fell to the deaf ears. On 3.3.1999, the complainant, her father and Mehal Singh along with Panchayat visited the house of the accused and requested them to rehabilitate Manjit Kaur but the efforts remained futile. On the basis of the aforesaid statement, FIR was registered against the accused. The accused were arrested. The dowry articles were recovered; statements of the witnesses were recorded. After completion of the investigation challan against the accused was presented in the court. The accused was charged under Sections 406/498-A IPC, to which the pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. The prosecution led evidence and ultimately the trial ended in conviction. However, in appeal, Jagir Singh (father in law) and Surjit Kaur (mother in law) were acquitted of the charges framed against them, whereas, judgment of conviction and sentence passed against the petitioner was affirmed. Arguments heard. Record perused. At the very outset, without assailing the findings of conviction, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that he being the first offender and having already undergone about four months out of the substantive sentence, must be extended some leniency. Having examined the impugned judgment, the evidence appears to have been appreciated in the right perspective. No illegality much less irregularity or perversity has been detected or pointed out warranting interference by this Court. As such, the impugned judgment of conviction is maintained. Now coming to the quantum of sentence, it may be observed that the occurrence took place way back in the year 1999 and the accused has already suffered a lot due to the protracted proceedings pending in the courts since then. He has already undergone about four months of the substantive sentence. No bad antecedents have come on record in order to dub him as habitual offender. As such, I am of the considered opinion that Criminal Revision No.1890 of 2004 -3- *** ends of justice would be met if some leniency is extended to him. Consequently, this petition is dismissed with the modification in the sentence which is reduced to six months without alteration in the sentence of fine. Copy of the judgment be sent to the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ferozepur for compliance. Mr. Arun Singla, Advocate Amicus Curiae may claim remuneration from the Competent Authority as per rules. March 11, 2010 (A.N. Jindal) deepak Judge