IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Reserved on: 10.12.2025 Pronounced on:17.12.2025 Uploaded on:17.12.2025 Bikramjit Singh ..Petitioner/Revisionist Versus State of Punjab and others ..Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE SHALINI SINGH NAGPAL Present: Mr. Naresh Jain, Advocate for the petitioner/revisionist.

Mr. Akash Yadav, AAG Punjab.

SHALINI SINGH NAGPAL , JUDGE Prayer in the revision petition is to set aside judgment of conviction and consequent order on quantum of sentence dated 16.11.2007 of learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Amritsar, as also the judgment of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Amritsar, dated 19.01.2010, in appeal.

2. The revisionist was tried by the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Amritsar, for the offences punishable under Sections 406, 498-A of the Indian Penal Code (for short ‘IPC’), was convicted and sentenced alongwith co-accused Darshan Singh and Kuldip Kaur. He and co-accused were convicted and sentenced as under:

All sentences were ordered to run concurrently.

3. Appeal against the judgment of conviction and order on sentence dated 16.11.2007 was partly allowed by the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Amritsar, vide judgment dated 19.01.2010. Co- accused Darshan Singh and Kuldip Kaur, parents of the revisionist, were acquitted of the charges against them, while the appeal filed by the Bikramjit Singh, was dismissed.

4. For the sake of clarity, the parties shall be referred to as they were before the Court of first instance.

5. Brief facts of the prosecution case are that on 14.11.2001 complainant Kulwinder Kaur daughter of Sukhdev Singh, resident of Village Wadala Vaheem, District Amritsar, made a complaint to the police stating therein that she was married with Bikramjit Singh son of Darshan Singh on 12.12.2000 as per Sikh rites and ceremonies, at Wadala. At the time of marriage, Bikramjit Singh was given one gold kara weighing 15 grams, Kuldip Kaur was given one gold bangle weighing 15 grams. This apart, her parents had also given gold jewellery, domestic articles and clothes etc. in dowry incurring expenditure of Rs.2 lac. The dowry articles were entrusted to her father-in-law Darshan Singh and mother-in-law Kuldip Kaur. After two months of the marriage, her husband Bikramjit Singh and parents-in-law started harassing her for bringing less dowry and raised demand of Rs.30,000/- and a motor cycle. She disclosed the demand to her parents who promised to fulfill the same. They visited her in-laws house along with mediator Swaran Singh son of Dewan Singh, assuring that dowry and money would be arranged but they could not keep the promise. Bikramjit Singh and his parents kept harassing the complainant for demand of a motor cycle and cash of Rs.30,000/- and when the demand was not satisfied, they turned her out of matrimonial home. About two months ago, all the accused came to her parent’s house and again raised demand of Rs.30,000/- and a motor cycle, if they wished to settle their daughter. Her parents pleaded with them but to no avail. A Panchayat was also taken, yet, the accused remained adamant on their demands. On the statement, case under Section 406, 498-A read with Section 34 IPC was registered. On completion of usual formalities, challan was presented in the Court for trial.

6. Copies of the challan were supplied to the accused. Charges were framed against them under Section 406, 498-A IPC. They did not plead guilty and claimed trial. Prosecution examined eight witnesses in all. Complainant-Kulwinder Kaur was examined as PW-1, Sukhdev Singh was examined as PW-2, Harpal Singh son of Tara Singh was examined as PW-3, Surjit Singh son of Lakha Singh was examined as PW4, Constable Parkash Kaur was examined as PW5, Ramesh Kumar son of Kharaiti Lal was examined as PW6, Dharampal son of Munshi Ram was examined as PW7 and SI Harbhajan Singh was examined as PW8

7. In their statements under Section 313 Cr.P.C., accused denied the incriminating evidence as fal