Sukhwinder Singh vs State of Haryana

Naresh Kumar Sanghi, J.—Challenge in this criminal revision petition is to the judgment dated 31.01.2014 passed by learned Sessions Judge, Narnaul, whereby appeal filed by the petitioners Sukhwinder Singh (husband), Charanjeet Singh (brother-in-law/Jeth) and Gurbachan Singh (father-in-law) of the complainant, Devender Kaur, challenging their conviction and sentence for the offences punishable under Sections 323, 406 and 498A read with Section 34, IPC, recorded by learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Narnaul, was dismissed.

At the very outset, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that in view of the concurrent findings of both the Courts below, he does not want to challenge the conviction of the petitioners. However, he submits that in view of the facts and circumstances of the case, the sentence awarded to the petitioners is on higher side. He further submits that the marriage of petitioner No. 1 Sukhwinder Singh was solemnized with complainant Devender Kaur in the year 2002. No child was born out of the wedlock. Due to matrimonial dispute, complainant Devender Kaur had filed a divorce petition and the same was accepted and thereafter petitioner No. 1 as well as complainant Devender Kaur had performed their respective marriages with some other persons. He further contends that petitioner No. 2 Charanjeet Singh is a Government teacher and if his sentence is maintained, then he might loose his service. He further contends that petitioner No. 2 is a married person and he has also to maintain his wife and children. It has also been contended that petitioner No. 3 Gurbachan Singh, who is aged more than 70 years and is retired from military, is the father-in-law of the complainant. It has also been contended that petitioner No. 1 (husband) is now aged approximately about 40 years and is an agriculturist and there is none else in his family to perform the agricultural work. Further contends that now he has second wife and children to maintain.

Learned counsel for the State has not objected to the prayer made by the learned counsel for the petitioners with regard to his option not to challenge the conviction of the petitioners. However, he submits that the Courts below have already taken a lenient view regarding quantum of sentence, therefore, there is no much scope for reduction of the sentence. However, he has not disputed the factual aspects raised by the learned counsel for the petitioners. Learned counsel for the State has produced three affidavits of the Superintendent of Prison, Narnaul, showing the period of incarceration suffered by the petitioners, which are taken on record.

Learned counsel for the complainant, Devender Kaur, has also not disputed the fact that Charanjeet Singh is a Government teacher. He also admits that Gurbachan Singh (father-in-law) of the complainant is aged 70 years and is a retired Army personnel. He also admits that Sukhwinder Singh and Devender Kaur have solemnized their respective marriages after divorce from each other. However, he has supported the arguments of learned counsel for the State with regard to the quantum of sentence.

I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and with their able assistance gone through the material available on record.

Though the learned counsel for the petitioners has opted not to challenge the conviction of the petitioners but to satisfy the conscience of this Court, the material available on record has been reappraised.

The present case was registered on the complaint moved by Devender Kaur (PW1), in which allegations of maltreatment at the hands of the petitioners, demand of dowry and retaining of her Stridhan were made.

After registration of the FIR, the case was thoroughly investigated and the charge sheet (report u/s 173, Cr.P.C.) was presented for prosecution of petitioners Sukhwinder Singh (husband), Charanjeet Singh (brother-in-law/Jeth) and Gurbachan Singh (father-in-law). They were charge-sheeted for the offences punishable under Sections 323, 406, 498A and 506 read with Section 34, IPC, to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.

In order to substantiate its allegations, the prosecution examined PW1-Devender Kaur; PW2 Nidhan Singh; PW3 Ravel Singh (brother-in-law/Jija of the complainant); PW4 Surender Pal Singh (brother of the complainant); PW5 ASI Ran Singh, the Investigating Officer, and PW6 Nathu Singh, the Deputy Superintendent of Police.

After completion of the prosecution evidence, statements of the petitioners in terms of Section 313, Cr.P.C., were recorded, in which they denied the incriminating evidence appeared against them and pleaded innocence.

In defence evidence, petitioners examined Gurdeep Singh (DW1) and Baldev Singh (DW2).

After completion of evidence of both the sides, learned trial Court held the petitioners guilty for the offences punishable under Sections 323, 406, 498A read with Section 34, IPC, and awarded the following sentences to each of the petitioners:

All the substantive sentences were ordered to run concurrently.

The said judgment of conviction and sentence was challenged before the learned Sessions Judge, Narnaul, by way of criminal appeal, but the same was dismissed in toto vide judgment dated 31.01.2014, hence the present revision petition.

After perusing the material available on record, particularly the depositions of the prosecution witnesses and considering the stand taken by the petitioners in their statements u/s 313, Cr.P.C., as well as the depositions of both the defence witnesses, this Court is of the considered view that both the Courts below have rightly held the petitioners guilty for the offences punishable under Sections 323, 406 and 498A read with Section 34, IPC, and as such, learned counsel for the petitioners had rightly opted not to contest the criminal revision petition qua conviction of the petitioners. However, there appears to be force in the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioners with regard to the quantum of sentence.

It has been argued that each of the petitioners has suffered more than five months of incarceration. Petitioner No. 3 Gurbachan Singh (father-in-law of the complainant) is aged about 70 years and is a retired Army personnel. So far as petitioner No. 2 Charanjeet Singh is concerned, he is brother-in-law/Jeth of the complainant, Devender Kaur, and is a Government teacher, as stated by the learned counsel for the petitioners. He is aged about 46 years and has a wife and children to maintain. Petitioner No. 1 Sukhwinder Singh is aged about 42 years and he has solemnized the second marriage after getting a decree of divorce from the complainant, Devender Kaur, and, as such, he has also to maintain his wife and the children from the second wife. He is an agriculturist. Concededly, the present criminal revision has arisen out of a matrimonial dispute. None of the petitioners is previous convict. The complainant has also solemnized her second marriage after getting the decree of divorce. Petitioners are facing the agony of trial, appeal and revision for the last more than ten years. The affidavits produced by learned counsel for the State reveal that each of the petitioners has suffered incarceration for more than five months and 13 days as on date.

In view of the above, the substantive sentence of petitioner No. 1 Sukhwinder Singh, who is husband of the complainant, is reduced to rigorous imprisonment for ten months for the offences u/s 498A and 406, IPC, whereas the sentence of imprisonment awarded u/s 323 read with Section 34, IPC, shall remain unaltered. All the substantive sentences shall run concurrently. However, the amount of fine imposed upon Sukhwinder Singh by the learned trial Court u/s 498A, IPC, is enhanced to Rs. 20,000/- to be deposited with the learned trial Court within a period of two months after his release from the jail; and in default of payment of fine within the stipulated period, the order of sentence passed by the learned trial Court shall enure. The amount of fine so imposed shall be converted into compensation and paid to the complainant, Devender Kaur. On receipt of the amount of compensation, a notice would be issued by the learned trial Court to the complainant, Devender Kaur, for withdrawal of the same as per law.

Petitioner No. 2 Charanjeet Singh, who is brother-in-law of the complainant, has already suffered incarceration for five months. Keeping in view the fact that he is a teacher and is likely to loose his job, his remaining substantive sentence is kept in abeyance and he is ordered to be released on probation in terms of Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958, for a period of two years subject to the following conditions:-

(i) he would furnish probation bond in the sum of Rs. 50,000/- with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of learned trial Court.

(ii) he would maintain peace and be of good behaviour during probation period.

(iii) he would suffer remaining part of his sentence, if ordered to do so by a Court of competent jurisdiction.

The amount of fine imposed by the learned trial Court upon petitioner No. 2 is ordered to be treated as costs of proceedings.

The substantive sentence awarded to petitioner No. 3 Gurbachan Singh, who is father-in-law of the complainant, is reduced to the period already undergone by him and the amount of fine imposed by the learned trial Court shall be treated as costs of proceedings.

With the above modification in the order of sentence, the present criminal revision is partly allowed.