Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2010 DIGILAW 3395 (PNJ)

Manohar Lal v. State of Punjab

2010-12-21

JITENDRA CHAUHAN

body2010
JUDGMENT JITENDRA CHAUHAN, J. (ORAL) 1. Two cases, namely, CRA No.154-SB of 2001 and CRR No.1040 of 2001 are being disposed of by this judgment having arisen from the same judgment. 2. The present criminal appeal has been filed against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 6.2.2001 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘impugned judgment’) whereby the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Hoshiarpur (hereinafter referred to as the ‘trial Court’), has convicted the appellant for the commission of offence under Section 498-A IPC and awarded him sentence to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of three years and to pay a fine of ` 10,000/-or in default, to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of six months. 3. Brief facts of the present case as set up by the prosecution, are that Smt. Sarla Devi, deceased, was the sister of Jiwan Lal, the complainant, PW1. She was married with the accused-Manohar Lal, about 5 ½ years prior to the date of occurrence and both of them had been residing at Mahilpur. At the time of marriage, sufficient dowry articles including clothes, cash and furniture, as per capacity and an amount of ` 1,50,000/-was spent thereon. It was alleged that after the marriage, the accused started maltreating the deceased and demanding money from her. Jiwan Lal and his brother gave ` 20,000/-to their sister (deceased) and the accused went to Dubai with this money. But after his return from Dubai after about 1 ½ years, the accused again started maltreating and beating the deceased. The accused was demanding more money from Sarla Devi and was forcing her to bring the same from her parents for starting his business. The accused and Sarla Devi had also come to the complainant and demanded money whereupon, the complainant and his family members arranged ` 17,000/-and paid to them. The accused started furniture shop at Mahilpur but the shop did not run well and the accused again started beating and maltreating the deceased and demanded more money. 4. On 27.7.1999 at about 9.00 p.m., Jiwan Lal, complainant, received a telephonic message that the accused-Manohar Lal had murdered Sarla Devi by administering some poisonous substance and her dead body had been brought to Village Bora. 4. On 27.7.1999 at about 9.00 p.m., Jiwan Lal, complainant, received a telephonic message that the accused-Manohar Lal had murdered Sarla Devi by administering some poisonous substance and her dead body had been brought to Village Bora. Thereafter, the complainant, along with his brother Shakti Kumar, Jaspal and other respectables, went to Village Bora at about 5.00 a.m. On reaching there, they found the dead body of Sarla Devi lying in the house of the accused. 5. On the basis of the statement, Ex.PA, made by the complainant, formal FIR Ex.PA/1 was registered against the accused. 6. On completion of investigation, challan was presented against the accused. Learned Judicial Magistrate, Class, Hoshiarpur, on finding a prima facie case against the accused, committed the same to the Court of Sessions whereupon, the accused were charge-sheeted for the commission of offence punishable under Section 304-B IPC, to which the accused pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. 7. In order to substantiate its case against the accused, the prosecution examined as many as seven witnesses, namely, Jiwan Lal as PW1; Shakti Kumar as PW2; Dr. Vipan Sharma as PW3; Constable Mohinder Singh as PW4; Krishan Virdi, Draftsman as PW5; HC Harjinder Singh as PW6; and Inspector Jaswant Rai as PW7. 8. Statement of the accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C. was recorded while putting him all the incriminating circumstances and material appearing against him in the prosecution case to which he denied and pleaded innocence. In his defence, the accused examined Shashi Kumar as DW1; Sukhdev as DW2; Arjan Dev, Clerk-cum-Cashier, as DW3; M K Verma, Manager, Punjab National Bank, Main Branch, Dhoori, as DW4; and Santokh Singh as DW5. 9. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and appreciating the material on record, the learned trial Court convicted and sentenced the accused-appellant for the offence and term as indicated at the outset hereinabove. 10. At the very outset, learned counsel for the appellant submitted that out of the total sentence of 03 years, the appellant has already undergone about 19 months of actual sentence. He has further submitted that two children born out of the wedlock who are now aged about 14-16 years, are going to school and the appellant has devoted his life to raise his children. 11. He has further submitted that two children born out of the wedlock who are now aged about 14-16 years, are going to school and the appellant has devoted his life to raise his children. 11. Learned counsel has prayed that in view of the fact that the appellant has already undergone more than half of the actual sentence, a lenient view be taken in the matter of sentence of imprisonment and the sentence of imprisonment be reduced to the period already undergone. 12. On the other hand, learned State counsel and Mr. Ashok Jindal, learned counsel for the revisionist-petitioner, have vehemently argued that the case against the appellant is proved beyond reasonable doubt and, therefore, the appellant does not deserve any leniency. However, the learned State counsel has not disputed the undergone period of the appellant. 13. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 14. Admittedly, the appellant has already undergone about 19 months of actual sentence out of the total sentence of 3 years i.e., more than half of the total sentence and has devoted his life in raising the children. He was released on bail by this Court vide order dated 27.2.2001. 15. In my view, sending the appellant to jail at this stage would be a harsh step and particularly, it will adversely affect the young children who are being looked after by the appellant. The appellant is not a previous convict. He has not misused the concession of bail. 16. In view of the mitigating circumstances and keeping in view the welfare of the children, I am inclined to take a lenient view in the matter of sentence, and, therefore, the sentence of imprisonment is reduced to the period already undergone. However, the sentence of fine is enhanced to ` 10,000/-to be paid to the complainant as compensation within a period of three months from the date of receipt of the certified copy of this order. In the event of failure to deposit the enhanced amount of fine, this appeal shall be deemed to have been dismissed. 17. With the above modification, the appeal is partly allowed. 18. The revision petition is also hereby dismissed. Petition dismissed.