Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2006 DIGILAW 2780 (PNJ)

Mahipal v. State Of Haryana

2006-07-17

A.N.JINDAL

body2006
Judgment A.N.Jindal, J. 1. This revision petition is against the judgment dated 1.6.2006 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-II, Bhiwani, dismissing the appeal of the appellants and affirming the judgment dated September 4, 2001 passed by the Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Loharu, vide which the accused revision-petitioners (hereinafter referred to as the petitioners) had been convicted under Sections 498A/323 read with Section 34 IPC and were sentenced to undergo following imprisonment :- U/s 498-A IPC : To undergo R.I for 1-1/2 years and to pay fine of Rs. 500/- each. In default of payment of fine to further undergo R.I. for a period of one month. U/s. 323 IPC : To undergo R.I. for six months and to pay fine of Rs. 500/- each. In default of payment of fine to further undergo R.I. for a period of one month. 2 Mahipal, Satbir Singh and Ishwar Singh sons of Indraj and Kadiya wife of Indraj were facing trial under Sections 498A/323 read with Section 34 of IPC since 14.9.1996 which was concluded by the Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Loharu on 4th September 2001 and had ended in conviction. Criminal appeal filed by the petitioner was dismissed by the Additional Sessions Judge-II, Bhiwani on June 1, 2006. 3. When the revision came up for hearing, notice was issued regarding sentence only. 4. I have scrutinized the judgments of both the Courts and have heard the learned counsel for the petitioners. 5. The solitary contention advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioners is that they have already suffered lot of agony on account of this protracted trial for more than 10 years due to matrimonial dispute. The marriage was broken and resulted in dissolution of marriage, therefore, it will be appropriate if the petitioners are extended benefit of probation. However, they are ready to compensate the complainant. 6. Having given my thoughtful consideration to the aforesaid contention, I find some substance in the same. The marriage of Sajna daughter of Maha Singh complainant was solemnized somewhere in the year 1991 and it went to rough weather on 18.7.1966 followed by registration of the instant case against Mahipal-husband, his two brothers and mother-in-law. Admittedly the marriage has already been irretrievably broken. The petitioners have already suffered a lot of mental agony due to this protracted trial. Admittedly the marriage has already been irretrievably broken. The petitioners have already suffered a lot of mental agony due to this protracted trial. They have also shown their bona fide by offering that they are still ready to pay some compensation to the complainant. Admittedly the accused are first offenders and they have earnest desire to lead peaceful life. Accused No. 4 is an old lady, therefore, these circumstances incite me to form an option that it will not be appropriate, in the given circumstances of the case, to send the petitioners to jail and allow them to turn out to be hardened criminals while mixing with other convicts in the jail. 7. For the foregoing reasons, I find no merit in the revision petition, the same is hereby dismissed with the modification that the petitioners are ordered to be released on probation or furnishing personal bonds in the sum of Rs. 25,000/- with one surety in the like amount each to the satisfaction of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bhiwani and they will also pay a sum of Rs. 30,000/- to Sajna D/o Maha Singh complainant on account of compensation within two months from today failing which the revision shall be treated to be dismissed. In addition to it, fine already imposed by the trial Court is converted into compensation and if realized, will be paid to the complainant.