Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2005 DIGILAW 302 (PNJ)

Mittu Singh v. State Of Haryana

2005-02-23

VIRENDER SINGH

body2005
Judgment Virender Singh, J. 1. Appellant Mittu Singh stands convicted under Sections 498-A and 304-B, I.P.C. vide the impugned judgment dated 1.10.1993 of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Hisar. He has been sentenced to undergo R.I. for 10 years under Section 304, I.P.C. However, the two co-accused namely Darshan Singh and Jagir Singh, who are real brothers of the appellant stand acquitted. State of Haryana has not preferred any appeal against their acquittal. 2. Smt. Sandhya is the deceased in this case who had (been) married to appellant on 23.6.1990 according to Hindu rites and ceremonies. The allegations against the appellant are that he had been harassing and maltreating her on account of demand of dowry and the latest demand before her death was of Rs. 25,000/-This demand was met from the mother and brother of the deceased. It is then alleged that Sandhya committed suicide on 15.8.1991 by consuming some poison, as per the report Ex. P-K, it is organophosphorus (group of insecticides). The present case has then registered on the statement of Satnam Singh P.W.-7, the real brother of the deceased. After investigation, the appellant was challenged along with his two brothers. All were charged under Sections 302, 304-B, 498-A and 406/34-B, I.P.C. As stated above, the co-accused have been acquitted whereas the appellant stands convicted under Sections 304-B and 498-A, I.P.C. He was, however, acquitted for the charge under Section 302, I.P.C. 3. I have heard Mr. S.S. Rana, learned Counsel for the appellant and Mr. D.S. Brar, learned A.A.G., Haryana and with their assistance, I have gone through the entire record. 4. Mr. Rana does not assail the impugned judgment on merits and instead has confined his arguments with regard to the quantum of sentence only. Even otherwise, being the Court of first appeal, I have perused the entire evidence on record by the Trial Court and the other material documents. In my view, there is no infirmity, factual or legal, in the impugned judgment. Consequently, I uphold the conviction of the appellant as recorded under Sections 304-B and 498-A, I.P.C. 5. With regard to quantum of sentence, Mr. Rana contends that the appellant at the time of alleged occurrence was of the age of 26 years. He has already remained in custody for 5 years and about 10 months. This includes the trial as well as the post-conviction period. With regard to quantum of sentence, Mr. Rana contends that the appellant at the time of alleged occurrence was of the age of 26 years. He has already remained in custody for 5 years and about 10 months. This includes the trial as well as the post-conviction period. He then contends that his two co-accused have already been acquitted by the Trial Court and this factor may also be considered as one of the mitigating circumstances while reducing the sentence. 6. In support of his contentions, Mr. Rana relies upon a judgment of this Court rendered in Jugraj Singh v. State of Punjab, 2004 (4) RCR (Crl.) 223 (P&H) : Crl. Appeal No. 242-SB of 2004 decided on 29.7.2004. 7. The prayer for reduction in the quantum of sentence is opposed by the learned State Counsel. 8. I find substance in the submissions made by Mr. Rana. As stated by him and not disputed by the learned State Counsel that the appellant has undergone about 6 years, to be precise he has undergone 5 years, 10 months and a few days. Two of the co-accused of the appellant have already been acquitted. This fact coupled with the other circumstances can also be considered as one of the mitigating circumstances. The fact that the appellant has also suffered a considerable incarceration upto the stage when his sentence was suspended by this Court calls for a lenient view. 9. In my considered view, the ends of justice would be adequately met if the substantive sentence of 10 years as awarded by the learned Trial Court is reduced to 7 years, the minimum provided for the offence punishable Section 304-B, I.P.C. It is so ordered. 10. Since the appellant has not been sentenced separately under Section 498-A, I.P.C., I need not touch that aspect. 11. Resultantly, the instant appeal stands dismissed except in the modification in the quantum of sentence as indicated above.