Rajinder Kumar alias Raman Kumar vs State of Punjab

Nirmaljit Kaur, J.—The present revision petition has been filed against the order dated 29.07.2008 passed by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Faridkot and order dated 03.08.2010 passed by Additional Sessions Judge (Ad hoc), Fast Track Court, Faridkot.

The Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Faridkot convicted the Petitioner u/s 498-A of the IPC vide order and judgment dated 29.07.2008 and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year and to pay a fine of Rs. 3000/ - for an offence u/s 498-A IPC and in default thereof, he was further directed to undergo imprisonment for one month.

Aggrieved, the Petitioner filed an appeal before the Additional Sessions Judge, Faridkot. The Additional Sessions Judge, Faridkot vide his order dated 03.08.2010 maintained the conviction of the Appellant and reduced the sentence to six months and to pay fine of Rs. 3000/- and in default of payment of fine, he was further directed to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 15 days. Hence, the present revision.

The order of the conviction has been challenged by the Petitioner only on the ground that the trial Court had acquitted all the accused except the Petitioner. Since the evidence is same, the Petitioner should also be acquitted.

Heard.

As per the facts, Respondent Sunil Bala had preferred the complaint before the Illaqa Magistrate under Sections 498-A/452/506/406/34 IPC on 10.04.2001 against the present Appellant and other with the averments that the complainant was married to Rajinder Kumar accused about 11 years ago as per Hindu rites. Her father had already died. Her mother Lachhmi Devi gave dowry in her marriage. All the articles of her dowry/lstridhan were entrusted to accused Nos. 1 to 7 at the time of her marriage on the condition that the same shall be handed over to the complainant as and when required. But the accused started harassing the complainant after sometime. They pressurized her to bring more dowry and also beat her. Her mother had been fulfilling demands of the accused. Rs. 40,000/- were paid in cash to them. But agreed of the accused increased day by day. They started demanding Rs. 50,000/- but mother of the complainant is a poor widow. She was unable to give more dowry. She gave Rs. 12,000/ - to the accused but it did not satisfy them. They beat the complainant and ultimately turned out of their house on 27.01.1998. Then she came to her mother. Panchayats were convened. Accused rehabilitated her in their house and assured the panchayat that they will not harass her in future. But they again started harassing her and demanding scooter or Rs. 20,000/ - from her. She again came back to her mother. Panchayats consisting of Kulwant Kaur, Tejinder Parsad @ Kukku, Krishan Lal brother of the complainant, Kala Singh and Chhinder Kau were convened in February, 1997. But the accused refused to rehabilitate the complainant in their house. On 10.07.1999, the accused along with some other unidentified persons came to parental house of the complainant. They attacked the complainant and her brother and beat them. They threatened to kill them. Upon raising noise by the complainant and her mother, the accused fled away. A case FIR No. 98 dated 24.11.1999 under Sections 498-A, 452, 506/34 IPC was registered. But the police did not take any action against the accused.

Nothing has been pointed out which may require this Court to interfere in the Order dated 29.07.2008 passed by Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Faridkot, vide which, the Petitioner was held guilty for an offence u/s 498-A of the IPC, wherein, all the other relatives of the Petitioner were acquitted of the said charge framed against them and the Petitioner was also acquitted except u/s 498-A IPC. Thus, the conviction of the Petitioner u/s 498-A IPC is upheld.

The complainant Sunil Bala appeared as PW-2. Her statement was corroborated by Krishan Lal and Kulwant Kaur, who also appeared as PW-1 and PW2-A, respectively. The accused Petitioners demanded motor cycle or in the alternative to give Rs. 20,000/ -. When she failed to fulfill the said demand, she was turned out from the matrimonial house. The present Petitioner is the husband.

The present case is a revision petition. This Court has limited jurisdiction to interfere or to appreciate the evidence afresh in the revision.

However, taking into account the totality of the facts and circumstances, as well as, the fact that the Petitioner is facing litigation since the year 1999, and is a first offender and has already undergone more than 21/2 months out of the total sentence of six months, he is ordered to be released on probation for the remaining period of sentence to the satisfaction of the trial Court subject to the condition to be imposed by the trial Court, as well as, subject to the payment of Rs. 10,000/ - as compensation to the complainant.

Disposed off accordingly.