CRR No.4185 of 2016 (OM) 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CRR No.4185 of 2016 (OM)
Date of decision: 18.03.2017
Tek Chand @ Babli
State of Haryana
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,
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
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
State of Bihar“, 2007(2) EcrC 167.
Counsel for the State has contested plea for reduction in
sentence on the premise that in view of misconduct of the petitioner
towards his wife since performance of marriage, rightly condemned by
the Courts below, he does not deserve any leniency.
The petitioner has faced rigmarole of the criminal
proceedings for the past about 08 years. Counsel for the respondent –
State has not disputed that the petitioner has a rod inserted in his right
leg. He is in custody since decision of his appeal by the Appellate
Taking into consideration a cumulative view of the facts
and circumstances discussed hereinbefore, I am of the considered
opinion that ends of justice would be met if substantive sentence
awarded to the petitioner for offence punishable under Section 498-A is
reduced to rigorous imprisonment for a period of 11 months.
With the aforesaid modification, the petition stands
3 of 4
::: Downloaded on – 25-03-2017 13:34:22 :::
CRR No.4185 of 2016 (OM) 4
(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 :::