Randhir Singh and Others vs State of Haryana

Gurdev Singh, J.—The Petitioners/accused- Randhir Singh and Subhash have preferred this revision against the judgment dated 19.2.2003 passed by Additional Sessions Judge Hisar, vide which he dismissed their appeal preferred against the judgment dated 27.1.2001 passed by Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Hansi, convicting them for the offences under Sections 406 and 498-A IPC and sentencing them as under:

Name of the accused Under Section Sentence Fine In default

Randhir Singh 498-A IPC R.I for two years Rs. 500/- ---

406 IPC R.I for two years Rs. 500/- R.I for one month

Subhash 498-A IPC R.I for two years Rs. 500/- ---

406 IPC R.I for two years Rs. 500/- R.I for one month

The brief facts are that Kiran Bala complainant P.W. 2 was married to Randhir Singh on 3.5.1993 and at that time her parents had given him and other accused dowry beyond their capacity, which consisted of cooler, T.V, double bed, chairs, gold ornaments etc.. On the very next day of the marriage the accused started taunting the complainant that she had not brought the dowry as per their expectations and they were expecting Rs. 50,000/- in cash, scooter and refrigerator from her parents. On 5.5.1993, she was compelled to bring all those articles from her parents when she came to attend the marriage of her brother on 6.5.1993. She lived with the accused for a couple of days, but they kept on harassing her and treating her with cruelty on the ground of demand of dowry. Her father succumbed to the pressure of the accused and gave Rs. 50,000/- in cash to them on 15.6.1993. The accused refused to keep her in the matrimonial home till the demand of scooter and refrigerator was fulfilled. She was turned out of matrimonial home and was not rehabilitated by the accused in spite of efforts made by her parents and other relatives. The complainant moved written complaint Ex. P.W. 2/A stating all these facts before the officer uncharge Police Station Sadar Hansi, and on the basis thereof FIR was recorded against the accused u/s 498-A IPC. The case was investigated by Bimla ASI, who recovered the dowry articles from the possession of the accused. In the course of investigation, the present Petitioners/accused, Shanti, Santosh and Om Parkash were arrested and after the completion thereof, the challan was put in before the Judicial Magistrate, Ist Class, Hansi, who found sufficient grounds for presuming that all the accused committed offences punishable under Sections 498-A and 406 IPC. They were charged accordingly, to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. To prove the guilt of the accused, prosecution examined ASI Bimla P.W. 1, Kiran Bala complainant P.W. 2, Pritam Singh P.W. 3, Hawa Singh P.W. 4, Ajit Singh P.W. 5, Om Parkash P.W. 6 and Dilbag Singh SI P.W. 7. After the close of the prosecution evidence, the accused were examined by the trial Court and their statements were recorded u/s 313 Code of Criminal Procedure The incriminating circumstances appearing against them in the prosecution evidence were put to them in order to enable them to explain the same. They denied all those circumstances and pleaded their innocence. It was stated by them that the complainant was much less in age than her husband and on that account there were no cordial relations between them and she wanted to marry some other person after obtaining divorce from him and on that account left the matrimonial home on her own. They also pleaded that the parents of the complainant wanted to extract money from them and for withdrawing the case demand of Rs. 2 lac was made. They were called upon to enter on their defence. They examined Balbir Singh D.W. 1 and Radha Kishan D.W. 2 in their defence. After going through the evidence so produced on the record and hearing learned Assistant P.P for the State and defence counsel, learned trial Court acquitted Bharpai, Shanti and Santosh, while convicting and sentencing the Petitioners/accused as aforesaid.

I have heard learned Counsel for both the sides.

Learned Counsel for the Petitioners did not assail the finding of conviction so recorded by the trial Court and upheld by the appellate Court. He confined his submissions to the sentence so imposed upon them. He submitted that the marriage of the complainant was performed about 17 years back and that the accused are standing their protracted trial from the last more then 15 years. All the dowry articles so given by the parents of the complainant were recovered by the investigating agency and were handed over to the complainant. He prayed that the sentence of imprisonment so imposed upon the accused be reduced to the period already undergone by them.

As per the custody certificate placed on the record by the State counsel, the Petitioners/accused have already undergone sentence of imprisonment for a period of five months and five days. Keeping in view that they are standing their protracted trial from the last more then 15 years, the ends of justice will be met in case the sentence imposed upon them is reduced to the period already undergone provided they are directed to pay suitable compensation to the complainant, who suffered harassment and cruelty at their hands.

Accordingly, the sentence of imprisonment so imposed upon the Petitioners/accused is reduced to the period already undergone and they are directed to pay Rs. 1 lakh as compensation to the complainant. The fine, if already deposited, shall be adjusted towards that amount and the same is to be paid/deposited in the trial Court within a period of three months of the passing of this order failing which the revision petition shall be deemed to have been dismissed.

Records be returned forthwith.