Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2009 DIGILAW 509 (PNJ)

Sushil Kumar v. State Of Punjab

2009-03-18

SHAM SUNDER

body2009
Judgment Sham Sunder, J. 1. This revision petition is directed against the judgment dated 1.4.2002, rendered by the court of Additional Sessions Judge, Muktsar, vide which it dismissed the appeal, against the Judgment of conviction and the order of sentence dated 16.9.1996, rendered by the Court of Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate. Malout, convicting the accused for the offences punishable under Sections 406 and 498-A of the Indian Penal Code and awarding sentences to him for various terms of imprisonment. 2. The facts, in brief, are that Ramesh Kanta, complainant, was married to Sushil Kumar on 7.7.1998. Immediately, after the marriage, certain differences cropped up, between the parties, on the ground that Ramesh Kanta had brought inadequate dowry. The parties parted their ways with each other. It was stated that the accused (now revision-petitioner), the husband of the complaint, and others members of his family, used to maltreat the complainant in connection with the demand of dowry. It was further stated that they also refused to hand over the dowry articles, entrusted to them and thus, mis-appropriated the same. On the basis of the complaint. made by the complaint, the investigation was conducted. The accused was arrested. After the completion of investigation, the accused was challaned. 3. On his appearance in the Court, the accused was supplied the copies of documents, relied upon by the prosecution. Charge under Sections 406 and 498 -IPC, was framed against the accused, to which he pleaded not guilty, and claimed judicial trial. 4. The prosecution, in support of its case, examined Des Raj, (PW-1). Jagan Nath, (PW-2) Ramesh Kanta, complainant, (PW-3), Ram Lal, Assistant Sub Inspector, (PW-4), Charan Dass. (PW-5), Fateh Chand, (PW-6), Malkiat Singh. (PW-7), Prem Kumar, (PW-8), Rajinder Kumar. (PW-9), Dewan Chand, (PW-10), Baldev Singh. Assistant Sub Inspector,(PW-l 1), Bakhtawar Mal, (PW-12), Hari Chand, (PW-13), Naresh Jagga, (PW-14), Sadhu Singh, L.C., (PW-15). Parveen Kumar, (PW-16) and Balwant Singh, Assistant Sub Inspector, (PW-17). Thereafter, the Additional Public Prosecutor for the State, closed the prosecution evidence. 5. The statement of the accused under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure was recorded. He was put all the incriminating circumstances, appearing against him, in the prosecution evidence. He pleaded false implication. In defence, the accused examined Krishan Kumar, DW-1 and Sham Lal, L.CDW-2. Thereafter, the accused closed the defence evidence. 6. 5. The statement of the accused under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure was recorded. He was put all the incriminating circumstances, appearing against him, in the prosecution evidence. He pleaded false implication. In defence, the accused examined Krishan Kumar, DW-1 and Sham Lal, L.CDW-2. Thereafter, the accused closed the defence evidence. 6. After hearing the Counsel for the parties and on going through the evidence on record the trial Court convicted and sentenced the accused as stated above. 7. Feeling aggrieved, against the judgment of the trial Court, an appeal was preferred by the accused/appellant, which was dismissed vide order dared 1.4.2002. by the court of the Additional Sessions Judge. Muktsar. 8. Still dis-satisficd, the instant revision-Petition was filed by the revision-petitioner. 9. I have heard the Counsel for the parties and have gone through the evidence and record of the case carefully. 10. The Counsel for the revision-petitioner, did not challenge the conviction, recorded by the trial Court, and affirmed by the Appellate Court, liven otherwise, he could not successfully challenge the same as the Courts below recorded the concurrent findings, on appreciation of the cogent, convincing and reliable evidence of Ramesh Kanta, complainant, (PW-3), duly corroborated by Des Raj, (PW-1), Jagan Nath (PW- 2), Charan Das, (PW-5), Fateh Chand, (PW- 6), Malkiat Singh, (PW-7), Prem Kumar, (PW-8), Rajinder Kumar, (PW-9), and Dewan Chand, (PW-10), that the complainant was maltreated in connection with the demand of dowry, and that the accused refused to return the dowry articles entrusted to him on demand and thus were right in coming to the conclusion that the accused was guilty ofthe commission of offences, punishable under Sections 406 and 498 of the Indian Penal Code. It is settled principle of law, that the Court in its revisional jurisdiction, cannot re-evaluate and re- appreciate the evidence, produced by the parties, until and unless, it comes to the conclusion, that the findings recorded by the Courts below are perverse of erroneous on account of misreading of the evidence. The careful perusal of the judgment of the Courts below, in context with the evidence produced by the prosecution, does not indicate that the findings of guilt recorded by the courts below are eithers perverse or illegal or erroneous on account of mis- reading of evidence. The careful perusal of the judgment of the Courts below, in context with the evidence produced by the prosecution, does not indicate that the findings of guilt recorded by the courts below are eithers perverse or illegal or erroneous on account of mis- reading of evidence. There is, therefore, no warrant to interfere with the judgment of conviction recorded by the trial court and affirmed by the Appellate Court. 11. The Counsel forthe revision-petitioner, however, submitted that the revision-petitioner has been facing the agony of protracted criminal proceedings since 16.9.1996. i.e. for the last more than 12 years. He further submitted that the petitioner has already undergone three months of detention during the course of investigation, trial and the pendency of the appeal; He further submitted that the accused did not commit any other offence after the registration of the first information report, in the instant case. He further submitted that no other criminal case is also pending against the petitioner. He thus submitted that lenient view be taken and the substantive sentence, awarded to the petitioner be reduced to the period of three months, already undergone by him. 12. It is case of broken marriage. The parties have already parted their,ways with each other. Since the revision-petitioner has been facing the protracted criminal proceeding for the last more than 12 years, he has already suffered a lot. It was only a matrimonial dispute between the parties, which resulted into the registration of Criminal case. Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case, the antecedents of the petitioner, and the factum that he has been facing the protracted criminal proceedings forthe last more than 12 years, I consider it a fit case, in which the substantive sentence awarded to him, should be reduced to a period of three months on each count in which the fine, imposed upon the accused should be enhanced to a sum of Rs. 20,000/-. 13. For the reasons recorded above the revision- petition is partly accepted. The judgment of conviction, rendered by the trial Court is a affirmed by the Appellant Court, is affirmed. The order of sentence is modified in the manner that the revision-petitioner shall undergo RI for a period of three months on each count instead of one year, on each count, which shall run concurrently. The amount of fine is enhanced to Rs. 20,000/-. The order of sentence is modified in the manner that the revision-petitioner shall undergo RI for a period of three months on each count instead of one year, on each count, which shall run concurrently. The amount of fine is enhanced to Rs. 20,000/-. On deposit of the amount of enhanced fine the same shall be disbursed to the complainant, against receipt, by the court concerned. 14. The Chief Judicial Magistrate is directed to comply with the judgment, within two months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of the same, keeping in view the applicability of the provisions of Section 428 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.