Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2003 DIGILAW 192 (PNJ)

Gurmail Singh v. State of Punjab

2003-01-31

VIRENDER SINGH

body2003
JUDGMENT Virender Singh, J. (Oral) - This revision petition is filed by Gurmail Kaur. The petitioner herein was convicted by Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Anandpur Sahib vide impugned judgment dated 12.3.2001 under Sections 211 and 193 of the Indian Penal Code. She has been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years with a fine of Rupees 500/- and in default whereof to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for three months under Section 193 of the Indian Penal Code and to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year with fine of Rupees 500/- and in default whereof to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for three months under section 211 of the Indian Penal Code. However, both the sentences were ordered to run concurrently. Against the judgment of conviction and sentence passed by the learned trial Court, the petitioner preferred an appeal and the same also stands dismissed vide impugned judgment dated 13.8.2001, passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Roopnagar. Hence, this revision petition. 2. The brief facts of this case can be culled out as under :- The present petitioner had filed a complaint under sections 323, 324/34, 354, 452, 376 of the Indian Penal Code read with section 511 Indian Penal Code before the Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Anandpur Sahib, alleging therein that her husband had obtained a stay order from the court of Sub Judge Ist Class, Anandpur Sahib against Ram Lubhaya and Bittu in a civil suit titled as "Bachittar Ram alias Bachint Ram and others v. Ram Lubhaya and others" and on account of the said stay order, Ram Lubhaya was nursing a grudge against the family of the petitioner, and on 4.3.1989, when her husband had gone out of the house in connection with some animal festival at Kurali, at about 7.00 P.M. Ram Lubhaya and Bittu entered in/her house and started abusing the petitioner and her husband and told her that her husband should withdraw the civil suit, otherwise they would indulge him in such an act that the petitioner and her family would remember for generations to come. It was then alleged in the said complaint filed by the petitioner that Bittu had gagged her mouth with a cloth and Ram Lubhaya caught hold of her. On her cries, Hukma had reached there and escaped the petitioner from the clutches of Ram Lubhaya and Bittu. It was then alleged in the said complaint filed by the petitioner that Bittu had gagged her mouth with a cloth and Ram Lubhaya caught hold of her. On her cries, Hukma had reached there and escaped the petitioner from the clutches of Ram Lubhaya and Bittu. It was then alleged by the petitioner in the complaint that Ram Lubhaya and Bittu torn her clothes. After the filing of criminal complaint, the preliminary evidence of the petitioner and her other witnesses was recorded and thereafter Ram Lubhaya and Bittu both were summoned to face trial. Since it was a case under section 376, Indian Penal Code the same was committed to the Court of Sessions and ultimately, Ram Lubhaya and Bittu were acquitted by the trial court on January 3, 1991. While acquitting Ram Lubhaya and Bittu, it was so observed by the trial Court that the petitioner had falsely implicated both the accused on account of the civil litigation between the parties and no incident as alleged by the petitioner had ever happened. Ram Lubhaya after his acquittal moved an application before the trial court making a prayer that the petitioner, her husband Bachint Ram and one Hukma who had appeared as PW. 3 and PW. 4, should be convicted under sections 193 and 211 of the Indian Penal Code for giving false evidence against them. The learned trial court thereafter sent the complaint to the concerned court for initiating action against the present petitioner, her husband and Hukma according to law. Consequently, the petitioner and two other persons were summoned to face trial. On consideration of the entire evidence, the petitioner and Hukma were convicted and sentenced as indicated above. It is pertinent to mention here that Bachint Ram alias Bachittar Ram, the husband of the petitioner had died during the pendency of the trial. 3. So far as Hukma is concerned, learned counsel for the petitioner has not been able to disclose as to whether he had filed any appeal against his conviction or not or what was its outcome. 4. I have heard Shri Vijay Lath, learned counsel for the petitioner and Shri H.P. Singh Raja, the learned Assistant Advocate General, Punjab and with their assistance, I have also gone through the record of the case. 5. At the very outset, Mr. 4. I have heard Shri Vijay Lath, learned counsel for the petitioner and Shri H.P. Singh Raja, the learned Assistant Advocate General, Punjab and with their assistance, I have also gone through the record of the case. 5. At the very outset, Mr. Lath, learned counsel for the petitioner does not assail the impugned judgment passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge confirming the conviction of the petitioner on merits. He has confined his arguments on the point of quantum of sentence only. He prays for reduction in the quantum of sentence and submitted that the appeal of the present petitioner was dismissed on August 13, 2001 and she was taken in custody on the same day and thereafter her substantive sentence was suspended by this Court on October 17, 2001. Even thereafter also she remained in jail for a few days as she could not furnish her bail bonds and this period in all comes to about three months. It was further contended by the learned counsel that the petitioner is having two minor children and she also lost her husband during the pendency of the trial. Her family was totally dependent, upon her husband Bachint Ram as he was the only bread earner in the family and after his death, she is facing a great hardship to run her house. The petitioner is not a previous convict and a lenient view may kindly be taken. So far as the quantum of sentence is concerned, the learned counsel so contends. 6. On the other hand, Shri H.P. Singh Raja, the learned Assistant Advocate General, Punjab contends that the petitioner does not deserve any leniency. 7. I find substance in the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner. Moreover, I feel that the petitioners must have come out with the complaint on the asking of her husband who is now dead as he wanted to settle the scores with Ram Lubhaya and others and she could not say no to her husband. Judging all the facts and circumstances of the present case, I am of the view that ends of justice would be adequately met if the sentence imposed upon the petitioner on both the counts by the trial Court and subsequently confirmed by the appellate Court is reduced to the period already undergone by her. However, the sentence of fine would remain the same. However, the sentence of fine would remain the same. It is ordered accordingly. Consequently, the present revision petition stands dismissed with the modification in the quantum of sentence as indicated above. Revision dismissed.