Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia, J.@mdashKewal Krishan son of Jugal Kishore was tried in a case FIR No. 73 dated 12.08.1988 registered at Police
Station Sadar, Kapurthala under Sections 406/498-A IPC.
2. The learned Trial Court on 26.08.1992 held the petitioner guilty for the offence u/s 498-A IPC and acquitted the petitioner u/s 406 IPC. The
learned Trial Court awarded rigorous imprisonment for a period of eight months and to pay a fine of Rs. 500/-, in default of payment of fine to
further undergo rigorous imprisonment for two months.
3. Aggrieved against the same, the petitioner filed an appeal and the same was also dismissed by the Court of Additional Sessions Judge,
Kapurthala on 06.04.1994.
4. Briefly stated prosecution case is that Nirmal Kanta was married with the accused-petitioner in December,1984 according to the Hindu rites. It
is stated that the dowry was entrusted to the petitioner and he started misbehaving and maltreating her after the marriage. He was not providing her
food and cloth on account of alleged less dowry articles given at the time of marriage.
5. Prosecution examined Nirmal Kanta-PW1, Rajinder Singh-PW2, the co-employee of the petitioner, Lakhbir Singh ASI-PW3, the Investigating
Officer, Lal Chand-PW4, the adopted father of Nirmal Kanta and Raghbir Singh, SI-PW5. The learned Trial Court rightly convicted the petitioner
u/s 498-A IPC and acquitted him u/s 406 IPC.
6. Mr. Kuldeep Sanwal appearing on behalf of the petitioner has drawn my attention to the letters Exhibits D1 to D4 and has stated that they were
the root cause of the marital discord. The learned Appellate Court has held that these letters were produced in the Court by the accused but it was
stated by Nirmal Kanta that she has not received these letters.
7. The Two Courts below have relied upon the testimonies of Nirmal Kanta-PW1, Rajinder Singh-PW2 and Lal Chand-PW4. I can not re-
appreciate or re-evaluate their evidence. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner has failed to point out any patent illegality or
incurable irregularity. Even otherwise, after going through the record, there is nothing to formulate any opinion different than the opinion expressed
by the two Courts below.
8. Mr. Kuldeep Sanwal appearing on behalf of the petitioner has stated that in this case, marriage has taken place in 1984 and the FIR was
registered in 1988. He has further states that about 20 years are going to lapse. The petitioner was only sentenced for eight months and he has
already undergone about one month. It has further been stated that since the conviction has been construed as disqualification, the petitioner has
lost his job also.
9. I am of the considered opinion that sending the petitioner behind the bar may not serve any useful purpose as his wife who has suffered is
required to be compensated. Therefore, taking into account the totality and circumstances of the case, it is ordered that the sentence of the
petitioner shall be reduced to the period already undergone, provided that the petitioner-husband shall compensate the wife and deposit an amount
of Rs. 50,000/- in the Court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kapurthala. In case, this amount of Rs. 50,000/- is deposited, sentence of the
petitioner shall be reduced to the period already undergone. In case, this amount of Rs. 50,000/- is not deposited within three months from today,
no benefit of reduction of sentence shall accrue in favour of the petitioner. Amount of Rs. 50,000/- shall be disbursed to the complainant wife by
CJM, Kapurthala.
With this modification, the instant petition stands disposed off.