CRR No.4185 of 2016 (OM) 1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH

CRR No.4185 of 2016 (OM)
Date of decision: 18.03.2017

Tek Chand @ Babli
….Petitioner
Versus
State of Haryana
….Respondent

CORAM: HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE REKHA MITTAL

Present: Mr. Rahul Garg, Advocate
for the petitioner.

Mr. Vikas Malik, DAG, Haryana.

REKHA MITTAL J.

Tek Chand @ Babli son of Rohtash Singh was tried for

commission of offence punishable under Sections 406, 498-A, 323 and

342, 506 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code (in short ‘IPC’)

in FIR No.52 dated 25.01.2009 registered at Police Station Kotwali,

Faridabad.

The learned trial Court held the petitioner guilty for

committing ofence punishable under Sections 406, 498-A, 323 and 342

IPC. He was sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for a period of 02

years and fine of Rs.200/- under Section 498-A IPC, simple

imprisonment for 03 months and fine of Rs.500/- each under Sections

323, 342 and 406 IPC with a default stipulation for failure to pay fine

for each of the offences.

Aggrieved against the same, the petitioner filed an appeal

and the same was allowed to the extent of acquitting the petitioner for

offence punishable under Section 406 IPC. On the other hand, appeal

1 of 4
::: Downloaded on – 25-03-2017 13:34:21 :::
CRR No.4185 of 2016 (OM) 2

preferred by the State of Haryana against acquittal of Rohtash and

Daryai Devi, co-accused of the petitioner was ordered to be dismissed.

Feeling aggrieved against the judgment passed by the

Court of appeal, the present petition has been preferred to assail the

conviction and sentence of the petitioner for offence under Sections

498-A, 323 and 342 IPC recorded by the trial Court and duly affirmed

in appeal.

Briefly stated, case of the prosecution is that the

complainant was married with the petitioner on 28.11.2004 and her

father gave sufficient dowry and spent an amount of Rs.4,00,000/-.

Since inception of the marriage, the petitioner, his parents and 02

brothers of the husband raised illegal demands, caused harassment to

the complainant and gave beatings.

The prosecution examined ASI Hukum Chand PW1, ASI

Kanhiya Lal PW2, Deep Chand, father of the complainant PW3,

Constable Sachin Kumar PW4, Sunita, complainant PW5 and Dr. D.S.

Rathi CW1 (examined as a Court witness).

Counsel for the petitioner has given up challenge to the

judgments passed by the Courts below on merits. This Court cannot re-

appreciate or re-evaluate evidence of the prosecution in view of limited

revisional jurisdiction. However, counsel for the petitioner has failed to

point out any patent illegality or incurable irregularity. This apart, on

perusal of the records, there is nothing material to formulate any

opinion different from the opinion expressed by the Courts below.

Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the marriage

was performed in the year 2004 and the criminal proceedings got

2 of 4
::: Downloaded on – 25-03-2017 13:34:22 :::
CRR No.4185 of 2016 (OM) 3

initiated in January, 2009. The petitioner is partially disabled as a rod

has been inserted in his right leg. He has already suffered custody for a

period of 4½ months. It is prayed that substantive sentence awarded to

the petitioner may be reduced to the period already undergone. In

support of his contention, he has relied upon judgments of this Court

“Kewal Krishan vs State of Punjab”, 2008(2) RCR (Criminal) 805,

“Sukhwinder Singh vs State of Punjab”, 2007(3) Law Herald 1911,

“S.P.S. Rathore vs C.B.I.”, 2010(3) RCR (Criminal) 325. Further

reference has been made to judgments of the Patna High Court “Mohd.

Yusuf vs State of Bihar”, 2002(1) EcrC 436 and “Vijay Kumar Jha vs

                                                     (REKHA MITTAL)
                                                         JUDGE
18.03.2017
yakub

               Whether speaking/reasoned:              Yes/No

               Whether reportable:                     Yes/No




                                  4 of 4
               ::: Downloaded on - 25-03-2017 13:34:22 :::