Criminal Appeal No.1039 Sb of 1998 Vs. State of Haryana - Court Judgment

SooperKanoon Citationsooperkanoon.com/1066984
CourtPunjab and Haryana High Court
Decided OnJan-15-2013
AppellantCriminal Appeal No.1039 Sb of 1998
RespondentState of Haryana
Excerpt:
criminal appeal no.1039 sb o”1. in the high court of punjab and haryana at chandigarh criminal appeal no.1039 sb of 1998 date of decision 15.1.2013. baljit ...... appellant . versus state of haryana ...... respondent. coram :- hon'ble mr.justice k.c.puri.1. whether reporters of local newspapers may be allowed to see the judgment?.2. to be referred to the reporters or not?.3. whether the judgment should be reported in the digest?. present : mr. b.s.saroha, advocate for the appellant. mr. deepak girhotra, aag, haryana. k.c.puri, j.appellant baljit has directed the present appeal against the judgment dated 2.12.1998 and order 4.12.1998 passed by learned additional sessions judge, sonepat vide which the accused/appellant has been convicted under section 498-a, of the indian penal code ( in short - the ipc ) and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of three years and to pay a fine of rs.5000/- and in default of payment of fine, to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months.2. briefly stated the case of the prosecution is that saroj was married to accused baljit about five and half years ago (from the date of occurrence) and immediately after the marriage, all the accused started criminal appeal no.1039 sb o”2. harassing and beating saroj for not bringing sufficient dowry in the marriage. complainant party tried to satisfy the demands of the accused. at one time, they handed over two buffaloes and at another time a second hand maruti van worth rs.65,000/- and on another occasion they paid rs.20,000/- in cash in the presence of balbir singh. the said amount was borrowed from pw indirawati. about a month prior to the reporting of the matter in question, the accused raised another demand of rs.50,000/- which could not be satisfied by the complainant or by the deceased and for this reason the accused started harassing and humiliating the deceased and even extended threat to kill her.3. it has been further alleged that on 18.10.1994, dalbir, brother of the deceased received information from a person resident of village mehmoodpur that saroj was seriously ill and called him. on going to village mehmoodpur dalbir singh came to knot that his sister had been killed in the fields of accused. complainant went to the house of the accused and saw the dead body of saroj lying in the room of a tubewell. the matter was reported to the police station gohana on 25.10.1994. on the basis therefore formal fir was registered and investigation commenced. the investigating officer prepared the site plan. statements of the witnesses were recorded and the accused was arrested on 31.10.994. autopsy on the body of deceased saroj was done on 19.10.1994. after completion of the necessary investigation, challan against the accused was presented in the court for trial of the accused.4. on appearance of the accused, copies of the documents as relied upon by the prosecution were supplied to the accused free of costs. criminal appeal no.1039 sb o”3. the offence under section 304-b, ipc alleged against the accused was exclusively triable by the court of session, therefore, the sub divisional judicial magistrate, gohana vide order dated 10.6.1996 committed the case to the court of session for trial of the accused.5. the trial court framed charge under section 304-b, ipc against the accused. the accused pleaded not guilty thereto and claimed trial.6. in order to establish its case, prosecution examined dalbir as pw-1, chand kaur as pw-2, hari ram patwari halqa as pw-3, indrawati as pw-4, si parkash chand as pw-5, dr. krishan lal as pw-6 and closed the prosecution evidence.7. in his statement recorded under section 313 of the cr.p.c., all the incriminating evidence appearing against him was put to the accused and he denied the same and pleaded his innocence. in defence, the accused examined karambir, election kanungo as dw-1, ishwar singh as dw-2, and inder singh as dw-3 and closed the same.8. the trial court after appraisal of the evidence vide judgment dated 16.1.1997 acquitted all the appellants by giving them benefit of doubt.9. feeling dissatisfied with the aforesaid judgment dated 16.1.1997 of acquittal dalbir son of daya nand complainant preferred criminal revision no.469 of 1997 and this court vide judgment dated 21.7.1998 in the said criminal revision petition, directed the trial court to re-examine the evidence and to come to the conclusion whether offence under section 498-a, ipc is made out qua baljit singh or no.?.10. in compliance with the judgment dated 21.7.1998 passed by this court, learned additional sessions judge, vide impugned judgment criminal appeal no.1039 sb o”4. dated 2.12.1998 and order dated 4.12.1998 convicted accused baljit under section 498-a, ipc and sentenced him to undergo imprisonment for a period of three years and to pay a fine of rs.5000/- and in default of payment of fine to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months.11. feeling dissatisfied with the aforesaid judgment and order passed by the trial court, baljit has preferred the present appeal.12. learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that mother and brother of the appellant have been acquitted under section 498-a, ipc. the case of the appellant is similar to that of those accused. it is contended that the ingredients of offence under section 498-a, ipc are also not made out against the present appellant.13. i have considered the said submission but do not find any force in that submission.14. this court has already observed that ingredient of offence under section 498-a, ipc are made out against the appellant in view of consistent demand of two buffaloes, maruti van and rs.20,000/- as stated by pw-1 dalbir singh and pw-2 chand kaur and pow-4 indirawati. the effect of some discrepancies pointed out during the course of arguments in their statements have been duly appreciated by this court while making observations referred to above. otherwise also, on re-appraisal of the testimony of dalbir (pw-1), chand kaur (pw-2) and indrawati (pw-4), it is clear that their is consistent demand of dowry articles in the shape of cash amount of rs.20,000/- two buffalos and maruti van.15. this court in criminal revision no.469 of 1997 after going through the evidence observed as under :- “after hearing the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the criminal appeal no.1039 sb o”5. rival parties and after going through the statement of shri dalbir (p.w. 1), whose statement stands corroborated by smt. chand kaur (p.w.2) and smt. indira wati (p.w.4), i am of the considered opinion that the offence under section 498-a, of the indian penal code is made out against the husband of the deceased and this aspect of the case has not been properly considered by the learned additional sessions judge while passing the impugned judgment.”16. this court has already observed that ingredients of offence under section 498-a, ipc are made out against the appellant in view of consistent demand of two buffaloes, maruti van and rs.20,000/- as stated by dalbir pw-1, chand kaur pw-2 and indirawati pw-4. the effect of some discrepancies pointed out during the course of arguments have been duly appreciated by this court while making observations referred to above. otherwise also, on re-appraisal of the testimonies dalbir pw-1, chand kaur pw-2 and indrawati pw-4, it is clear that there is consistent demand of dowry articles in the shape of cash amount of rs.20,000/-, two buffaloes and maruti van.17. so far as the case of mother and brother of the appellant is concerned they have been acquitted as specific demand of dowry articles against them was not proved and as such their acquittal is not a ground for interferring in the order of conviction passed by the trial court. so far as authority ghanshyam dass vs. state of haryana reported in 2000 (4) r.c.r. (criminal ) page 516 ; mahipal and others vs. state of haryana reported in 2006 (4) r.c.r.(criminal ) page 883 and authority amarjit singh and others vs. state of haryana 1995 (1) criminal appeal no.1039 sb o”6. r.c.r. (criminal ) page 625 are concerned, all these authorities are distinguishable to the facts of the present case. in none of these authorities wives were alive whereas in the present case the wife of the appellant has expired. it would not be in consonance with the criminal justice to grant concession of probation or reduce the sentence to the period already undergone in the set of circumstances of the present case.17. the learned counsel for the appellant having found difficult in acquittal in view of the observations made by this court in criminal revision no.469 of 1997 has submitted that the appellant is facing trial since 1994 i.e. more than eighteen years, the counsel for the appellant has further contended that as per custody certificate appellant has undergone incarceration for a period of seventeen days. the appellant has settled in his life. so, in these circumstances prayer has been made for reduction in sentence.18. i have considered the said submission.19. however, this court cannot ignore the fact that the appellant has been facing the agony of trial for the last more than eighteen years and three months in the present case and has remained in custody for seventeen days. so, keeping in view all the circumstances, the sentence of the appellant imposed under section 498-a, ipc stands reduced to one year instead of three years awarded by the trial court. the sentence of fine awarded by the trial court stands affirmed. however, the period of which the appellant remains in custody during investigation, trial and after conviction is ordered to be set off against the substantive sentence of criminal appeal no.1039 sb o”7. imprisonment imposed upon the appellant.20. with the modification in the sentence, the appeal stands disposed of accordingly.21. a copy of this judgment be sent to the trial court for strict compliance. ( k.c.puri ) judge january 15 , 2013 sv
Judgment:

Criminal Appeal No.1039 SB o”

1. IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Criminal Appeal No.1039 SB of 1998 Date of decision 15.1.2013. Baljit ...... Appellant . versus State of Haryana ...... Respondent. CORAM :- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE K.C.PURI.

1. Whether Reporters of Local Newspapers may be allowed to see the judgment?.

2. To be referred to the Reporters or not?.

3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?. Present : Mr. B.S.Saroha, Advocate for the appellant. Mr. Deepak Girhotra, AAG, Haryana. K.C.PURI, J.Appellant Baljit has directed the present appeal against the judgment dated 2.12.1998 and order 4.12.1998 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sonepat vide which the accused/appellant has been convicted under Section 498-A, of the Indian Penal Code ( in short - the IPC ) and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of three years and to pay a fine of Rs.5000/- and in default of payment of fine, to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months.

2. Briefly stated the case of the prosecution is that Saroj was married to accused Baljit about five and half years ago (from the date of occurrence) and immediately after the marriage, all the accused started Criminal Appeal No.1039 SB o”

2. harassing and beating Saroj for not bringing sufficient dowry in the marriage. Complainant party tried to satisfy the demands of the accused. At one time, they handed over two buffaloes and at another time a second hand Maruti Van worth Rs.65,000/- and on another occasion they paid Rs.20,000/- in cash in the presence of Balbir Singh. The said amount was borrowed from PW Indirawati. About a month prior to the reporting of the matter in question, the accused raised another demand of Rs.50,000/- which could not be satisfied by the complainant or by the deceased and for this reason the accused started harassing and humiliating the deceased and even extended threat to kill her.

3. It has been further alleged that on 18.10.1994, Dalbir, brother of the deceased received information from a person resident of village Mehmoodpur that Saroj was seriously ill and called him. On going to village Mehmoodpur Dalbir Singh came to knot that his sister had been killed in the fields of accused. Complainant went to the house of the accused and saw the dead body of Saroj lying in the room of a tubewell. The matter was reported to the police Station Gohana on 25.10.1994. On the basis therefore formal FIR was registered and investigation commenced. The investigating officer prepared the site plan. Statements of the witnesses were recorded and the accused was arrested on 31.10.994. Autopsy on the body of deceased Saroj was done on 19.10.1994. After completion of the necessary investigation, challan against the accused was presented in the Court for trial of the accused.

4. On appearance of the accused, copies of the documents as relied upon by the prosecution were supplied to the accused free of costs. Criminal Appeal No.1039 SB o”

3. The offence under Section 304-B, IPC alleged against the accused was exclusively triable by the court of Session, therefore, the Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Gohana vide order dated 10.6.1996 committed the case to the Court of Session for trial of the accused.

5. The trial Court framed charge under Section 304-B, IPC against the accused. The accused pleaded not guilty thereto and claimed trial.

6. In order to establish its case, prosecution examined Dalbir as PW-1, Chand Kaur as PW-2, Hari Ram Patwari Halqa as PW-3, Indrawati as PW-4, SI Parkash Chand as PW-5, Dr. Krishan Lal as PW-6 and closed the prosecution evidence.

7. In his statement recorded under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C., all the incriminating evidence appearing against him was put to the accused and he denied the same and pleaded his innocence. In defence, the accused examined Karambir, Election Kanungo as DW-1, Ishwar Singh as DW-2, and Inder Singh as DW-3 and closed the same.

8. The trial Court after appraisal of the evidence vide judgment dated 16.1.1997 acquitted all the appellants by giving them benefit of doubt.

9. Feeling dissatisfied with the aforesaid judgment dated 16.1.1997 of acquittal Dalbir son of Daya Nand complainant preferred criminal revision No.469 of 1997 and this Court vide judgment dated 21.7.1998 in the said criminal revision petition, directed the trial court to re-examine the evidence and to come to the conclusion whether offence under Section 498-A, IPC is made out qua Baljit Singh or No.?.

10. In compliance with the judgment dated 21.7.1998 passed by this Court, learned Additional Sessions Judge, vide impugned judgment Criminal Appeal No.1039 SB o”

4. dated 2.12.1998 and order dated 4.12.1998 convicted accused Baljit under Section 498-A, IPC and sentenced him to undergo imprisonment for a period of three years and to pay a fine of Rs.5000/- and in default of payment of fine to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months.

11. Feeling dissatisfied with the aforesaid judgment and order passed by the trial Court, Baljit has preferred the present appeal.

12. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that mother and brother of the appellant have been acquitted under Section 498-A, IPC. The case of the appellant is similar to that of those accused. It is contended that the ingredients of offence under Section 498-A, IPC are also not made out against the present appellant.

13. I have considered the said submission but do not find any force in that submission.

14. This Court has already observed that ingredient of offence under Section 498-A, IPC are made out against the appellant in view of consistent demand of two buffaloes, Maruti Van and Rs.20,000/- as stated by PW-1 Dalbir Singh and PW-2 Chand Kaur and POW-4 Indirawati. The effect of some discrepancies pointed out during the course of arguments in their statements have been duly appreciated by this Court while making observations referred to above. Otherwise also, on re-appraisal of the testimony of Dalbir (PW-1), Chand Kaur (PW-2) and Indrawati (PW-4), it is clear that their is consistent demand of dowry articles in the shape of cash amount of Rs.20,000/- two buffalos and Maruti Van.

15. This Court in Criminal Revision No.469 of 1997 after going through the evidence observed as under :- “After hearing the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Criminal Appeal No.1039 SB o”

5. rival parties and after going through the statement of Shri Dalbir (P.W. 1), whose statement stands corroborated by Smt. Chand Kaur (P.W.2) and Smt. Indira Wati (P.W.4), I am of the considered opinion that the offence under Section 498-A, of the Indian Penal Code is made out against the husband of the deceased and this aspect of the case has not been properly considered by the learned Additional Sessions Judge while passing the impugned judgment.”

16. This Court has already observed that ingredients of offence under Section 498-A, IPC are made out against the appellant in view of consistent demand of two buffaloes, Maruti Van and Rs.20,000/- as stated by Dalbir PW-1, Chand Kaur PW-2 and Indirawati PW-4. The effect of some discrepancies pointed out during the course of arguments have been duly appreciated by this Court while making observations referred to above. Otherwise also, on re-appraisal of the testimonies Dalbir PW-1, Chand Kaur PW-2 and Indrawati PW-4, it is clear that there is consistent demand of dowry articles in the shape of cash amount of Rs.20,000/-, two buffaloes and Maruti Van.

17. So far as the case of mother and brother of the appellant is concerned they have been acquitted as specific demand of dowry articles against them was not proved and as such their acquittal is not a ground for interferring in the order of conviction passed by the trial Court. So far as authority Ghanshyam Dass vs. State of Haryana reported in 2000 (4) R.C.R. (Criminal ) page 516 ; Mahipal and others vs. State of Haryana reported in 2006 (4) R.C.R.(Criminal ) page 883 and authority Amarjit Singh and others vs. State of Haryana 1995 (1) Criminal Appeal No.1039 SB o”

6. R.C.R. (Criminal ) page 625 are concerned, all these authorities are distinguishable to the facts of the present case. In none of these authorities wives were alive whereas in the present case the wife of the appellant has expired. It would not be in consonance with the criminal justice to grant concession of probation or reduce the sentence to the period already undergone in the set of circumstances of the present case.

17. The learned counsel for the appellant having found difficult in acquittal in view of the observations made by this Court in Criminal Revision No.469 of 1997 has submitted that the appellant is facing trial since 1994 i.e. more than eighteen years, the counsel for the appellant has further contended that as per custody certificate appellant has undergone incarceration for a period of seventeen days. The appellant has settled in his life. So, in these circumstances prayer has been made for reduction in sentence.

18. I have considered the said submission.

19. However, this Court cannot ignore the fact that the appellant has been facing the agony of trial for the last more than eighteen years and three months in the present case and has remained in custody for seventeen days. So, keeping in view all the circumstances, the sentence of the appellant imposed under Section 498-A, IPC stands reduced to one year instead of three years awarded by the trial Court. The sentence of fine awarded by the trial Court stands affirmed. However, the period of which the appellant remains in custody during investigation, trial and after conviction is ordered to be set off against the substantive sentence of Criminal Appeal No.1039 SB o”

7. imprisonment imposed upon the appellant.

20. With the modification in the sentence, the appeal stands disposed of accordingly.

21. A copy of this judgment be sent to the trial Court for strict compliance. ( K.C.PURI ) JUDGE January 15 , 2013 sv