Tajinder Singh vs State of Punjab

Hari Pal Verma, J.—Tajinder Singh, who was married with Gurmit Kaur - complainant, has filed the present revision petition against judgment dated 17.10.2002, whereby the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Amritsar has modified the judgment dated 6.3.2002 passed by the trial Court wherein the trial Court has convicted the petitioner under Sections 406/498-A IPC and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of two years and to pay fine of Rs.500/- and in default of payment of fine, to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for month, and thereby reduced the sentence to undergo imprisonment for a period of 6 months under Section 498-A IPC and to pay fine of Rs.500/- and in default of payment of fine, to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for one month while setting aside the conviction awarded under Section 406 IPC.

The brief facts of the case are that Smt. Gurmit Kaur - complainant has made as statement that her marriage was performed with the petitioner - Tajinder Singh (accused) on 21.1.1993. Her father gave sufficient dowry as per his capacity, which included jewellery, Godrej almirah, sofa set, dressing table, double beds, iron peti and other domestic articles of daily use. The other accused namely Naresh Rani and Gurcharan Singh, the real aunt and uncle of her husband Tajinder Singh had performed their marriage as her mother-in-law and father-in-law respectively. However, immediately after the marriage, the petitioner Tajinder Singh, Naresh Rani and Gurcharan Singh used to beat the complainant at her matrimonial house. They compelled the complainant to bring colour T.V. and fridge. The complainant though did not write any letter to her parents about the beatings caused to her by the accused, but she used to convey the behavior of the above-named accused. She was fed up with the beatings at the hands of the accused persons. Finally, she was turned out from her matrimonial house in the month of December, 1993. She came to her parents house at Fatehgarh Churian and suffered a statement that although her parents along with respectables of her caste and Panchayat members used to go to her matrimonial house but the accused persons never heard the complainant and her parents. Naresh Rani rather used to ask the complainant to sign the papers for divorce. Accordingly, on the statement of the complainant, case was registered against the accused.

The criminal law was put in motion and challan was presented against the accused including the petitioner. They were supplied copies of the challan free of cost as required under Section 207 CrPC. On the basis of documents placed on record, a prima facie case under Section 406/498-A IPC was made out against the accused and accordingly, the accused were charged for various offences. However, they did not plead guilty and claimed trial.

The prosecution in order to substantiate the offences examined as many as eight witnesses and finally, closed the prosecution evidence on 13.12.2001.

Statements of the accused as provided under Section 313 CrPC were recorded wherein they denied the prosecution allegations. The accused pleaded innocence and rather alleged false implication. They led evidence in their defence and examined DW-1 Joginder Singh and DW-2 Jagjit Singh and closed their evidence.

Learned trial Court framed points for determination namely:-

Whether all the accused committed criminal breach of trust by using further restraining the complainant from using the dowry articles of the complainant?

Whether all the accused cause cruelty to the complainant by harassing her on demand for dowry and bearing her?

Whether all the accused are liable to be convicted for commission of an offence punishable under Section 406/498-A IPC?"

PW-1 Gurmit Kaur, complainant, proved her complaint/application Ex.PA moved before Senior Superintendent of Police, Amritsar as well as her statement Ex.PB recorded by the police, recovery memos. Ex.PC and Ex.PD regarding recovery of dowry articles. PW-1 Gurmit Kaur has deposed in her statement against the accused which led to registration of FIR. During cross-examination, she also admitted letters Ex.D1 to Ex.D9 written by her and also admitted the compromise deed Ex.D10.

Similarly, PW-2 Amarjit Singh who is father of the complainant also corroborated the version of the complainant and proved the dowry articles Ex.P1 to Ex.P139. The dowry articles were recovered from the possession of the accused. Similarly, PW-3 Prabhjit Singh also corroborated the version of the complainant. PW-4 ASI Kishori Lal proved the recovery memo. Ex.PC and Ex.PD of the dowry articles, copy of FIR Ex.PW-4/A and his endorsement on the statement of the complainant Gurmit Kaur Ex.PW-4/B. He has deposed that the said dowry articles were recovered from the possession of the accused. PW-5 Bhagwant Singh has deposed that he sold one double bed, one table and one dressing table to Amarjit Singh, father of the complainant, which was purchased by him for the marriage of his daughter. PW-6 Surinder Singh has deposed about the purchase of clothes and PW-7 proved the bills Ex.PW-7/A to Ex.PW-7/D that some clothes were purchased from his shop. PW-8 Ashok Kumar has deposed about purchase of utensils vide bill Ex.PW- 8/A by Shri Amarjit Singh.

The defence evidence was also led. DW-1 Joginder Singh has deposed that the marriage between the complainant and the petitioner was a simple one and no dowry articles were given. He further stated that the complainant was never maltreated by the accused for demand of dowry. No dowry articles were recovered from the accused. He further stated that Tajinder Singh was living separately from the other accused namely Gurcharan Singh and Naresh Rani. Similarly, DW-2 Jagjit Singh has stated that the marriage was simple and without any dowry articles. The complainant was never maltreated.

On the basis of aforesaid evidence, as led by the respective parties, learned trial Court convicted the accused for commission of offence under Sections 406/498-A IPC. The relevant para of the said judgment dated 6.3.2002 passed by the trial Court reads as under:-

"Hence, the prosecution has succeeded to prove the points of determination against the accused as they have successfully proved the prosecution allegations against the accused for bringing home the guilt of the accused for the charged offence. Accordingly, all the accused are convicted for commission of an offence punishable under Section 406/498-A IPC. The accused have not claimed ownership of the dowry articles. On the other hand, the father of complainant has proved that the said dowry articles Ex.P1 to Ex.P139 were the ''Istri dhan'' of his daughter which are still lying in the police station. Therefore, the said dowry articles be returned to the father of the complainant under rules after the expiry of period of appeal or revision, if any (as admitted the complainant has now expired). Let the convicts be heard on the question of sentence."

Learned trial Court accordingly, convicted the petitioner along with other accused under Sections 406/498-A IPC and sentenced them to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of two years and to pay fine of Rs.500/- and in default of payment of fine, to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for one month.

The aforesaid judgment dated 6.3.2002 was challenged by way of appeal, wherein learned Additional Sessions Judge, Amritsar vide judgment dated 17.10.2002 accepted the appeal in part. While the conviction of the petitioner along with other accused under Section 406 IPC was set aside, his conviction under Section 498-A IPC, was reduced to 6 months RI along with fine of Rs.500/- and in default of payment of fine, to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for one month.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the marriage between the petitioner and the complainant had taken place on 21.1.1993 and the present FIR was registered under Sections 406/498-A IPC in the year 1994. In this way, more than 20 years have passed and the revision petitioner has been facing the agony of protracted criminal proceedings for the last about 21 years. He further submitted that the petitioner has already undergone one month of detention during the course of investigation, trial and pendency of the appeal. The accused did not commit any other offence after the registration of the FIR in the instant case. It is submitted that no other criminal case is pending against the petitioner and therefore, a lenient view be taken and the substantive sentence awarded to the petitioner be reduced to the period already undergone by the petitioner. Learned counsel further argued that even during the pendency of the present revision petition, the complainant has died and the only son which was born out of this wedlock, is staying with the petitioner. Learned counsel relies upon a judgment of this Court in the case of Sushil Kumar Vs. State of Punjab, (2010) 1 RCR(Criminal) 48 to support his contention that considering it being a matrimonial dispute, where the accused has been facing the protracted trial, the sentence be reduced to the period already undergone by the petitioner. He further contended that the case of the petitioner is on better footing than the facts involved in Sushil Kumar v. State of Punjab (supra). He has also relied upon a judgment of Hon''ble the Apex Court in the case of S. Mahaboob Basha Vs. The State of Karnataka, (2015) 1 CCR 394 : (2014) 4 Crimes 518 : (2015) 1 DMC 536 : (2015) 1 JCC 38 : (2014) 4 RCR(Criminal) 769 to contend that the sentence imposed upon the petitioner be reduced to the period already undergone by the petitioner. Paras 11 and 12 of the said judgment in S. Mahaboob Basha v. State of Karnataka (supra) read as under:-

"11. Coming to the quantum of sentence imposed on the appellant, the question of awarding sentence is a matter of discretion of the court and is to be exercised on consideration of facts and circumstances of each case. The conviction under Section 498A IPC where wife is subjected to cruelty, sentence imposed on the husband and in-laws should be commensurate with the charges and court should impose punishment befitting the offence. In Narsingh Prasad Singh Vs. Raj Kumar @ Pappu and Others, AIR 2001 SC 1828 : (2001) CriLJ 2039 : (2001) 2 Crimes 180 : (2001) 1 DMC 724 : (2001) 4 JT 531 : (2001) 3 SCALE 250 : (2001) 4 SCC 522 : (2001) 2 SCR 984 : (2001) AIRSCW 1539 : (2001) 3 Supreme 195 , this Court emphasized that in case of conviction under Section 498A, it is the duty of the court to pass appropriate order of sentence.

The accused-appellant had remarried and has three children through his second wife, who are to be educated. The appellant through his first wife has two daughters and one son and one daughter is said to be pursuing engineering course. The appellant has to take care of his aged parents. The appellant has undergone sentence of imprisonment for about one month and the appellant is presently on bail. Considering the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case, the sentence of imprisonment imposed on the appellant for conviction under Section 498A IPC is reduced to the period already undergone by him and a fine of Rs. 2,00,000/- (Rupees two lakh only) is imposed, in default of payment of fine, the appellant is to undergo imprisonment for five months. Insofar as the conviction of the appellant under Section 506 IPC, he was sentenced to undergo SI for six months and it is reduced to the period already undergone and the same is ordered to run concurrently. The fine amount of Rs. 2,00,000/- is payable in two instalments. Rs. 1,00,000/- is payable within four months from today and remaining Rs. 1,00,000/- within six months thereafter. In default of payment of any one instalment of the amount, the appellant is to undergo the imprisonment as aforesaid. The fine amount of Rs. 2,00,000/- shall be paid to PW-1, Noorunnisa as compensation under Section 357 Cr.P.C. We direct the trial court/Principal Judicial Magistrate First Class, Bellary to issue notice to PW-1 Noorunissa, as and when the instalments are deposited and disburse the amount to PW-1 Noorunissa."

Thus, for the reasons recorded above, the revision petition is partly accepted and the judgment of conviction rendered by the appellate Court is affirmed. However, the order of sentence is modified in the manner that the revision-petitioner shall undergo imprisonment for the period of sentence already undergone by him.