Revision against conviction where petitioners underwent long trial; court maintained conviction but reduced sentence to time served and enhanced compensation.
Sentence reduced to the period already undergone; compensation enhanced from Rs.8,000 to Rs.30,000, to be paid within three months on penalty of further imprisonment.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
Crl. Revn. No.1519 of 1999 (O&M)
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
Crl. Revn. No.1519 of 1999(O&M) Date of Decision:10.8.2009
Satguru Singh @ Bhola and another
…petitioners
Versus
State of Punjab and another
…Respondents
CORAM: HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE HARBANS LAL
Present: Mr.Balbir Singh, Advocate for
Mr.Ashok Singla, Advocate for the petitioner Mr.Arshvinder Singh, Deputy Advocate General, Punjab Mr.Ashok Aggarwal, Advocate for respondent No.2.
JUDGMENT
HARBANS LAL, J.
This revision is directed against the judgment dated 3.11.1999 passed by the court of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Mansa, whereby he dismissed the appeal of accused Satguru Singh @ Bhola as well as his mother Gulab Kaur, but acquitted their co- accused namely, Paramjit Kaur, Jeeta Singh and Kailo by accepting their appeal. They all had filed the appeal against the judgment /order of sentence dated 2.11.998 rendered by
the court of learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Mansa, vide which, he had convicted and sentenced the accused Satguru Singh @ Bhola to
Crl. Revn. No.1519 of 1999 (O&M)
2
undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years and to pay a fine of Rs.2,000/under Section 494 of IPC and had sentenced his co-accused namely Paramjit Kaur, Teja Singh, Gulab Kaur Charanjit Kaur, Amar Kaur, Jeeta Singh and Kailo to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years each and to make a payment of fine Rs.2,000/- each under Section 494 of IPC read with Section 109 of IPC and in default of payment of fine, the defaulter to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for three months. This apart, the learned trial court has also awarded a sum of Rs.8,000/- as compensation to the complainant under Section 357 of Cr.P.C.
Shortly put, the prosecution case is that Raj Kaur was married to Satguru Singh @ Bhola accused on 28.3.1990 by way of Anand Karaj ceremony at village Heero Khurd. Thereafter, they both resided at village Lahil Kalan as husband and wife. A female baby, who was born from their wedlock, breathed her last after 3 days of her birth. A few days after their marriage, Satguru Singh @ Bhola and his relatives started maltreating her on the ground of her having brought inadequate dowry. Satguru Singh @ Bhola also complained that he did not like her and would contract second marriage. She was turned out of the house only after 9 months of her marriage, when she was carrying a child. On 13.4.1992 Gamdoor Singh s/o Sohan Singh, resident of village Andianwali informed her father that Satguru Singh @ Bhola had performed second marriage on 10.4.1992 with accused Paramjit Kaur in the presence of his co-accused. After recording preliminary evidence, Satguru Singh @ Bhola, Paramjit Kaur, Teja Singh, Gulab Kaur, Jeeta Singh, Kailo were summoned to face the trial. During the
Crl. Revn. No.1519 of 1999 (O&M)
3
pendency of complaint, Teja Singh accused expired. After recording precharge evidence, accused were charged under Section 494 read with Section 109 of IPC, to which they did not plead guilty and claimed trial. On close of the prosecution evidence, when examined under Section 313 of Cr.P.C., all the accused denied the incriminating circumstances appearing in the prosecution evidence against them and pleaded innocence besides false implication. In their defence, they examined Atma Singh.
After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, the learned trial court convicted and sentenced the accused as noticed at the outset. Feeling aggrieved with their conviction/sentence, they went up in appeal, which was partly accepted. The appeal preferred by the petitioners Satguru Singh @ Bhola and Gulab Kaur was dismissed by the court of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Mansa. Being undaunted and dissatisfied with the judgments recorded by the both the courts below, Satguru Singh @ Bhola and Gulab Kaur have preferred this revision.
I have heard the learned counsel for the parties, besides perusing the record with due care and circumspection.
Realising that he would not be able to persuade this court to take a view contrary to the findings returned by both the courts below, the learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that he does not wish to assail the conviction. On analysing and scrutinizing the evidence on record, it is found that the judgments recorded by both the courts below qua the petitioners cannot be faulted with in any manner. Sequelly, their conviction is maintained. At this juncture, the learned counsel for the petitioners
Crl. Revn. No.1519 of 1999 (O&M)
4
submitted that the petitioners have been facing the agony of trial since 1992 and that being so, their sentence may be reduced to the already undergone.
As against this, the learned counsel for the complainant has maintained that the ends of justice shall not be adequately met, if the sentence is reduced to the already undergone.
I have given a deep and thoughtful consideration to the rival contentions. Needless to say, this incident is more than 17 years old. As per the custody certificate, taken on record, both the petitioners have already undergone 2 months and 25 days of the actual sentence each. In re: Sadhu Singh versus State of Punjab, 2004(1) Recent Criminal Reports
(Criminal), 108, the accused was convicted under Section 326 of IPC. The occurrence being 18 years old, the sentence was reduced to the already undergone (one month). In re: Nirmal Singh Versus State of Punjab 2005 (1) Recent Criminal Reports (Crl.), 477 , also the accused was convicted under Section 326 of IPC. The incident being 17 years old, the sentence was reduced to the already undergone (one month). In the case at hand, the petitioners while on bail during the pendency of this revision, did not make misuse of this liberty. To my mind, the complainant party can be compensated in terms of money. Thus, taking into consideration the cumulative facts and circumstances of the case, the sentence of the petitioners is reduced to the already undergone (2 months and 25 days each). The amount of compensation imposed by the learned trial court is enhanced from Rs.8,000/- to Rs.30,000/-. Each petitioner shall deposit a sum of Rs.15,000/- in the trial court within three month from today, failing
Crl. Revn. No.1519 of 1999 (O&M)
5
which their petition shall be deemed to have been dismissed. If the sum of Rs.8,000/- have already been deposited on account of compensation, then the balance amount of Rs.22,000/- shall be deposited by the petitioners in equal share within the said period. On deposit, the entire amount of compensation i.e. Rs.30,000/- shall be disbursed to the complainant Raj Kaur by the trial court. In the event of failure to deposit the said amount of compensation by the petitioners, the trial court shall send intimation to the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Mansa, who in turn shall take necessary steps to send the petitioners to the prison.
The Registry is directed to send a copy of this judgment to the successor court of Mr.Ashok Kumar, the then Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Mansa as well as the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Mansa. With this modification in the order of sentence, this revision petition fails and is dismissed
10th August, 2009 (Harbans Lal) gsv Judge
Whether to be referred to the Reporter ? Yes/No.
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the long pendency of trial since 1992 warrants reduction of sentence to the term already undergone.
Whether the compensation amount awarded to the complainant should be enhanced.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Sadhu Singh versus State of PunjabReferred¶31
Sadhu Singh versus State of Punjab, 2004(1) Recent Criminal Reports (Criminal), 108
Nirmal Singh Versus State of PunjabReferred¶31
Nirmal Singh Versus State of Punjab 2005 (1) Recent Criminal Reports (Crl.), 477
Satguru Singh @ Bhola
Gulab Kaur
State of Punjab
Harbans Lal
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
