Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2004 DIGILAW 469 (PNJ)

Gurbachan Singh v. State of Punjab

2004-04-21

VIRENDER SINGH

body2004
JUDGMENT Virender Singh, J. - Vide this judgment, I shall be disposing of Criminal Appeal No. 439-SB of 1991 (Gurbachan Singh and another v. State of Punjab) and Criminal Revision No. 238 of 1992 (Bachan Singh v. Gurbachan Singh etc.) as both the cases arise out of the same judgment. 2. Gurbachan Singh and his father Gopal Singh, the appellants herein were charged under Section 302 Indian Penal Code and in the alternative, under Section 304-B Indian Penal Code. They stand acquitted of the charges under Sections 302 Indian Penal Code and 304-B Indian Penal Code but instead convicted under Section 498-A Indian Penal Code by the impugned judgment dated 13.11.1991 of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Ludhiana and have been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three years and to pay a fine of Rs. 500/- each, in default of payment of fine to suffer further RI for two months. Aggrieved by the judgment of conviction and sentence, they have preferred the present appeal. Bachan Singh complainant has also filed the present revision, which was ordered to be heard along with the main appeal. It is stated at Bar from both the sides that the State of Punjab has not filed any appeal against acquittal of the appellants under Sections 302 and 304-B Indian Penal Code. 3. I have heard Mr. P.S. Hundal, learned counsel for the appellants, Mr. J.S. Bhandari, learned Deputy Advocate General representing the State of Punjab and Mr. Amrik Singh Kalra, learned counsel for the complainant/revisionist. With their assistance, I have also gone through the entire record minutely. 4. Learned counsel for the appellants has not joined the issue so far as merits of the case are concerned and has confined his arguments with regard to quantum of sentence only. He contends that the appellants have since been acquitted for the main offences as no evidence was produced by the prosecution to substantiate the charge. The only evidence led against them was that Santosh Kumari was not traceable and has not been heard of since 11/12.8.1989. The learned counsel then contends that even the trial Court has observed in its impugned judgment that she was a woman of unsound or unbalanced mind and would leave the matrimonial home on impulse. For this reason, the conclusion drawn by the trial court is that her sudden disappearance indicates that she was subjected to cruelty. The learned counsel then contends that even the trial Court has observed in its impugned judgment that she was a woman of unsound or unbalanced mind and would leave the matrimonial home on impulse. For this reason, the conclusion drawn by the trial court is that her sudden disappearance indicates that she was subjected to cruelty. He further contends that from the impugned judgment, it appears that Gurbachan Singh appellant, the husband used to take excessive liquor due to which there used to be an altercation between the couple. He then submits that Gopal Singh appellant was 67 years of age at the time of the incident, as it clear from the charge-sheet framed in the year 1991 and by now he has gone old (80 years), whereas Gurbachan Singh appellant was 30 years of age at that time. Mr. Hundal further contends that in the present set of circumstances, the appellants have faced the agony of protracted trial for about 15 years and have also remained in custody for about a month during trial. They, thus, deserve a sympathetic tilt with regard to sentence. 5. Refuting the arguments, the learned State Counsel contents that both the appellants do not deserve any concession in sentence as both of them started harassing Santosh Kumari immediately after the marriage. Picking up the thread, Mr. Kalra submits that although the prosecution has not been able to prove the charge framed against the appellants and the State has not filed any appeal against their acquittal, yet the fact remains that both the appellants have earned conviction under Section 498-A Indian Penal Code on the ground that Santosh Kumari was subjected to cruelty by them within ten months of the marriage and as such their case does not call for any interference with regard to reduction in quantum of sentence. 6. Though the conviction of the appellants has not been assailed on merits, yet being first Court of appeal, I have gone through the entire record minutely and, in my considered view, the prosecution has been able to prove its case under Section 498-A Indian Penal Code against both the appellants. Their conviction is consequently affirmed. 7. So far as quantum of sentence is concerned, the case of Gopal Singh appellant can be distinguished from his son Gurbachan Singh. Gopal Singh was 67 years at the time of commission of offence. Their conviction is consequently affirmed. 7. So far as quantum of sentence is concerned, the case of Gopal Singh appellant can be distinguished from his son Gurbachan Singh. Gopal Singh was 67 years at the time of commission of offence. By now he has attained the age of 80 years. As stated by the learned counsel for the appellants and not disputed by the opposing quarter, Gopal Singh has already undergone some period of substantive sentence (30 days). From the facts of the present case also, the main accusation is against Gurbachan Singh appellant, the husband. In my considered view, ends of justice would be adequately met if the substantive sentence awarded to Gopal Singh appellant is reduced to the period already undergone by him. However, the sentence of fine shall remain intact. Ordered accordingly. 8. Having an overall view of the facts of the case, Gurbachan Singh appellant also deserves some reduction in the quantum of substantive sentence. The sentence of 3 years RI as awarded to him by the learned trial Court under Section 498-A Indian Penal Code is reduced to two years. The sentence of fine on this count shall remain as it is. 9. Admittedly, Gurbachan Singh appellant is an agriculturist. He has the capacity to pay compensation to Bachan Singh complainant, father of Santosh Kumari. In my considered view, Rs. 20,000/- would not be an exorbitant figure. Consequently, Gurbachan Singh appellant is directed to pay Rs. 20,000/- as compensation under Section 357(3) Criminal Procedure Code to the father of Santosh Kumari. It is made clear that the amount of compensation shall be over and above the amount of fine already awarded by the learned trial Court within three months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this judgment, the same in turn would be disbursed to the complainant without any further delay. With the modification with regard to the quantum of sentence as indicated above, the present appeal stands dismissed. Gurbachan Singh appellant shall surrender to custody in order to serve out his remaining part of the substantive sentence. Necessary steps shall be taken up in this regard. Criminal Revision No. 283 of 1992 also stands disposed of accordingly. Appeal dismissed.