SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation

Judgments of Supreme Court of India and High Courts

Sukhwinder Lal vs State Of Haryana on 20 July, 2018

CRR No. 1126 of 2011 -1-


CRR No. 1126 of 2011 (OM)
Date of decision : 20.7.2018

Sukhwinder Lal


State of Haryana

Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice H. S. Madaan

Present: Mr.Hitesh Sood, Advocate
for the petitioner.

Mr. Gaurav Bansal, Assistant Advocate General,

H. S. Madaan, J.

This revision petition is directed against judgment dated

5.5.2011 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Kurukshetra, vide

which he had dismissed the appeal filed by the petitioner accused

against judgment dated 18.5.2009 and order dated 22.5.2009 passed

by Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Kurukshetra, vide which he was

convicted and sentenced. The accused-revisionist prays that the

revision petition be accepted, the judgments passed by the Courts

below be set aside and he be acquitted of the charge framed against


1 of 7
24-07-2018 10:43:15 :::
CRR No. 1126 of 2011 -2-

Briefly stated, facts of the case are that Santosh Devi –

complainant had filed a complaint against her husband – accused

Sukhwinder Lal and father-in-law Prem Chand in the Court Judicial

Magistrate, Kurukshetra, which was sent to Police Station Babain,

under Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C. and was received there on 16.2.2001,

on the basis of which formal FIR Exhibit PW-1/A was recorded there.

Inter alia in the complaint, complainant Santosh Devi had contended

that she was married with accused Sukhwinder Lal on 28.4.1996, as

per Hindu rites and ceremonies at village Sanghore. Thereafter, the

couple started residing together at village Mirzapur. The marriage

was consummated, however, no child was born, that after the

marriage Sukhwinder Lal – husband and Prem Chand – father-in-law

of the complainant started harassing and maltreating her, asking her

to bring more dowry from her parents; that the complainant could not

oblige them, then she was harassed and tortured; that parental family

of the complainant had met some demands of the accused but even

then they were not happy; that in the month of August 1999, when

Sushil Kumar, brother of the complainant visited the matrimonial

home, he was beaten up by both the accused, raising demand of

money; that when Brij Mohan, another brother of the complainant

came to see her in the matrimonial home, then too they misbehaved

with him and abused him; that on 20.8.1999, Sukhwinder Lal tried to

kill the complainant by strangulating her; that on 23.2.2000, she was

turned out of the matrimonial home. She had to fall back upon her

parents. The accused had retained all her istridhan articles, rather

misappropriating the same. Several Panchayats were convened. The

2 of 7
::: Downloaded on – 24-07-2018 10:43:15 :::
CRR No. 1126 of 2011 -3-

accused neither rehabilitated the complainant in the matrimonial

home nor returned the istridhan articles. The complainant had

reported that matter to the police but no action was taken against

them. Thereafter she had filed the complaint in the court of law.

After registration of the FIR, the matter was

investigated. Statements of the witnesses were recorded. The accused

were arrested in this case. Some of the dowry articles of the

complainant were recovered.

After completion of investigation and other formalities,

challan against the accused was prepared and filed in the Court.

On presentation of challan in the Court, copies of the

documents relied upon therein were supplied to the accused free of

cost, as provided under Section 207 Cr.P.C. After going through the

record and then finding a prima facie case, charge for offences under

Sections 406, 498-A IPC read with Section 34 IPC was framed

against the accused, to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed


The case was fixed for evidence of prosecution, during

the course of which the prosecution examined PW-1 ASI Mahavir

Singh, PW-2 Santosh Devi, complainant, PW-3 Sushil Kumar, PW-4

Mohan Lal, PW-5 Mohan Lal, PW-6 Ram Karan, PW-7 Ajaib Singh,

PW-8 Sukhdev Singh SI and thereafter evidence of the prosecution

stood closed.

Statements of accused were recorded under Section 313

Cr.P.C. in which all the incriminating circumstances appearing

against the accused were put to them, but they denied the allegations

3 of 7
24-07-2018 10:43:15 :::
CRR No. 1126 of 2011 -4-

and raised the plea that they have been falsely involved in this case.

In their defence evidence, they tendered copy of complaint Exhibit

D1, copy of order dated 19.9.2008 Exhibit D2, copy of order dated

15.12.2003 Exhibit D3, copy of petition dated 8.1.2008 Exhibit D4,

copy of order dated 10.11.2008 Exhibit D5, photographs of

complainant Exhibit D6, copy of order dated 8.9.2008 Exhibit D7 and

copy of order dated 19.8.2008 Ex. D-8.

After hearing the arguments, the trial Court convicted the

accused Sukhwinder Lal for an offence under Section 498-A IPC

observing that prosecution had prove entrustment of istridhan and

refusal of accused to hand over those articles on demand. Both the

accused had been acquitted of charge framed for offence under

Section 406 IPC. Accused Prem Chand was not found to have

committed offence under Section 498-A IPC even. Whereas charge

for offence under Section 498-A IPC was found to have been

established against Sukhwinder Lal, as such he was held guilty for

said offence, vide judgment dated 18.5.2009 and vide order dated

22.5.2009, he was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a

period of one year and to pay a fine of Rs.500/-, in default of payment

of fine, to undergo further simple imprisonment for a period of 15


The accused convict had preferred an appeal before the

Court of Sessions, but was unsuccessful there, as such he has

approached this Court by way of filing the present revision petition,

notice of which was given to the respondent State, who put in


4 of 7
24-07-2018 10:43:15 :::
CRR No. 1126 of 2011 -5-

I have heard learned counsel for the revisionist, learned

State counsel, besides going through the record and I find that there is

no merit in the revision petition. It is well settled that scope of

revisional jurisdiction of this Court is quite limited and the Court is to

interfere only if there is an illegality or infirmity apparent on the face

of the judgment under challenge. This is not the case here.

In the instant case, the prosecution examined in as many

as 8 witnesses. PW-2, Santosh Devi, complainant narrated her tale of

woes on oath, categorically stating that after a few days of her

marriage, which was solemnized on 28.4.1994, accused persons

started bearing her and demanded motorcycle and Rs.50,000 cash.

She stated that a box, almirah, chair, table, sofa set, other household

articles and gold ornaments had been given to her husband and father-

in-law which are in their possession. She further narrated the amounts

given in cash by her parents to the accused. She proved her complaint

Exhibit PA, list of articles Exhibit PB and list of witnesses Exhibit


PW-3 Sushil Kumar brother of the complainant

supported the case of prosecution on all material aspects, as regards

accused beating his sister and demanding dowry. They gave

Rs16,000/- and then Rs.10,000/- on three occasions to the accused

persons, but despite that his sister being maltreated. He stated that

when he after a month he visited her sister’s house, he was also beaten


PW-4 Mohan Lal lent support to the prosecution on

material points.

5 of 7
24-07-2018 10:43:15 :::
CRR No. 1126 of 2011 -6-

PW-7 Ajaib Singh stated that articles recovered from the

house of Sukhwinder Lal were given to Santosh Devi in the police

Station in his presence which were identified by her .

PW-8 SI Sukhev Singh who has carried out investigation

in this case stated that on 12.8.2001, Sukhwinder and Prem were

arrested and dowry articles were taken into police possession vide

Exhibit PD and after completion of investigation challan was

prepared by ASI/SHO Baljeet Singh. As such it stand established on

record that complainant Santosh Devi was subjected to cruelty, fulfill

illegal demand of dowry by her husband Sukhwinder Lal.

Complainant Santosh Devi had no reason to file a false complaint

against her husband and father-in-law and then to pursue it. Further

there was not occasion for her to come out of the matrimonial home

without any rhyme or reason. It comes out that she was thrown out of

the matrimonial home by the accused, since she had failed to meet

their demand of more dowry articles. The trial Court was justified in

convicting Sukhwinder Lal for offence under Section 498 A IPC and

sentencing him accordingly.

The Appellate Court did not commit any error in

dismissing the application. The Appellate Court has rather by detailed

discussion, in light of the legal position on the subject, found that

Sukhwinder Lal had treated his wife with cruelty. The necessary

ingredients of offence under Section 498-A IPC i.e. Sukhwinder Lal

being husband of Santosh Devi had subjected her to cruelty, fully

stand established on record. The trial Court was justified in

convicting the accused for said offence. The substantive sentence

6 of 7
24-07-2018 10:43:15 :::
CRR No. 1126 of 2011 -7-

awarded to him is also only for one year when the sentence could

extend to three years. The judgment of the Appellate Court also does

not suffer from any infirmity. There is no ground to upset the

judgments passed by the Courts below, as well as conviction of the

revisionist for offence under Section 498-A IPC. There is no scope

for further reduction in the sentence.

The revision petition is found to be without any merit

and the same is dismissed accordingly.

The accused is stated to be on bail granted by this Court. He

be taken into custody so as to undergo the remaining sentence.

( H.S. Madaan )
20.7.2018 Judge

Whether speaking / reasoned Yes / No

Whether reportable Yes / No

7 of 7
24-07-2018 10:43:15 :::

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Copyright © 2021 SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation

Free Legal Help, Just WhatsApp Away

MyNation HELP line

We are Not Lawyers, but No Lawyer will give you Advice like We do

Please read Group Rules – CLICK HERE, If You agree then Please Register CLICK HERE and after registration  JOIN WELCOME GROUP HERE

We handle Women Centric biased laws like False Sectioin 498A IPC, Domestic Violence(DV ACT), Divorce, Maintenance, Alimony, Child Custody, HMA 24, 125 CrPc, 307, 312, 313, 323, 354, 376, 377, 406, 420, 497, 506, 509; TEP, RTI and many more…

MyNation FoundationMyNation FoundationMyNation Foundation