Crl Revision No. 2130 of 2002

-1-

In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh

Crl Revision No. 2130 of 2002

Date of Decision:December 07

, 2009

Jeet Mal and others

---Petitioners

versus

State of Haryana

---Respondent

Coram:

HONBLE MR. JUSTICE GURDEV SINGH

***

Present:

Mr.Ashish Handa, Advocate,

for the petitioners

Mr.Raja Sharma, Asstt. Advocate General, Haryana

Mr. Suveer Sheokand, Advocate

for the complainant

***

GURDEV SINGH, J.

This revision has been preferred by Jeet Mal, Ram Niwas,

Shamsher Singh and Krishna Kumar petitioners -accused against judgment

dated 22.10.2002 passed by Sh. R.S.Bagri, Additional Sessions Judge-II,

Jind, dismissing the appeal preferred against the judgment dated

13.10.2000 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Jind, vide

which he convicted these petitioners for the offence under Section 498-A

read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced them to

Crl Revision No. 2130 of 2002

-2-

undergo rigorous imprisonent for a period of one year and to pay a fine of

Rs. 1000/- each and in default thereof to further undergo rigorous

imprisonment for a period of one month.

The facts in brief are that Bimla-PW-2 was married to Krishan

Kumar - petitioner, who is the son of Jit Ram and other petitioners are his

brothers. At the time of marriage, Sultan Singh-complainant, PW-1, father

of Bimla, had given dowry to them as per his capacity and still they had

been demanding more dowry in the form of scooter, fridge and colour T.V.

In fact, the petitioners wanted to perform the second marriage of Krishan

Kumar after eliminating Bimla. The complainant tried to approach the

panchayat of the village of the petitioners but that had no effect on them.

They started treating Bimla with cruelty on the ground of dowry. The

complaiant got lodged the FIR against them. The investigation was

conducted and in the course thereof, statements of the witnesses were

recorded. Sufficient evidence was collected against the petitioners and

accordingly, the police report was submitted against them under Section

173 Cr.P.C. before the learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, who charged

them for the offence under Section 498-A read with Section 34 IPC. The

prosecution examined Sultan Singh-complainant-PW-1, Bimla, PW-2,

Mahendro, PW-3, C. Mahabir Singh PW-4, Rishi Ram, PW-5 and Mehar

Singh, PW-6 against the petitioners and thereafter, their statements were

recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. in which all the incriminating

circumstances were put to them in order to enable them to explain the same.

They denied those circumstances and pleaded their innocence. In defence

evidence, some documents were produced. Learned Judicial Magistrate Ist

Class after going through the evidence and hearing the learned defence

Crl Revision No. 2130 of 2002

-3-

counsel for the accused and public prosecutor for the State, convicted and

sentenced the petitioners for the aforesaid offence. The petitioners preferred

an appeal against the judgment of conviction and sentence but the same

was dismissed by learned Additional Sessions Judge.

Notice of the revision was given to the State.

I have heard learned defence counsel for the accused and

Assistant Advocate General, Haryana for the State and have carefully gone

through the records of the case.

During the arguments, learned defence counsel only challenged

the order of sentence passed by learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class. He

argued that Ram Niwas and Jit Ram-petitioners are in the Army and as a

result of the order of sentence, they are bound to suffer so far as their

service record is concerned. They have been denied the benefit of

probation by the learned trial court on flimsy grounds and keeping in view

the maximum sentence provided for the offence, for which they have been

convicted, they should have been granted the benefit of probation. On the

other han