Mr. Deepak Maheshwari, J.—This revision petition has been filed by the accused-revisionist against the judgment dated 17th May, 1996
passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Hanumangarh in Criminal Appeal No. 20/1994 whereby, the learned Appellate Court, while
accepting the appeal in respect of Sadhu Singh, Bagga Singh, Mst. Bhuti @ Narendra Kaur, Mst. Sheela and Mst. Kuldeep Kaur, has acquitted
them for the offence punishable under Section 498-A IPC, has partly rejected the appeal qua the revisionist-Malkiat Singh and has held, him guilty
for the offence punishable under Section 498-A IPC and sentenced him for rigorous imprisonment for one year and a fine of Rs. 100/- and further
to undergo sentence of 15 days simple imprisonment in default of payment of fine.
2. Facts in brief are that the complainant Chhindrapal has submitted a complaint Ex.P/1 on 19th March. 1986 in the Court of Munsif and Judicial
Magistrate, Suratgarh alleging that during his marriage with the accused-Malkiat Singh solemnised on 4th February, 1984, her father gifted many
articles to her worth Rs.1.00,000/- but the family members of the accused-Malkiat Singh including his father, brother and mother and he himself
rebuked her for bringing less articles in dowry. They used to demand many other items. Their demand was sometimes satisfied by her father but
they raised more demands repeatedly When the demand was not satisfied, the accused-persons retrained her in a room and did not give any food
to eat. Her maternal uncle Hardeo Singh tried to convince her in-laws. A panchayat was also called in this matter wherein, the accused-persons
assured not to raise the demand and harass the complainant in future but they again demanded Rs. 10,000/- and forced the complainant to leave
her marital home. Thereafter, she was residing with her father.
3. Based on these allegations, FIR No. 37/86 was registered. After completing the investigation, a charge-sheet for the offences punishable under
Sections 498-A, 406 and 323 IPC was filed against 6 accused persons
4. The learned Trial Court, after hearing the arguments, framed charges against all of them under the above said Sections. The accused denied the
charges and claimed trial. During trial, as many as 8 witnesses were examined and documentary evidence was also produced. The statements of
the accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C. were recorded. After hearing the arguments of both the sides, the learned Trial Court acquitted all the
accused-persons for the offence punishable under Sections 406 and 323 IPC but convicted all of them for the offence punishable under Section
498-A IPC and awarded rigorous imprisonment for two years along with fine of Rs.200/- for each of them.
5. Aggrieved by the judgment dated 30th April, 1994, all the accused persons preferred appeal wherein, the judgment was passed by the learned
Appellate Court on 17th May, 1996 as mentioned earlier.
6. By way of the judgment dated 17th May, 1996 only the accussed-Malkiat Singh was punished for the offence under Section 498-A IPC, who
has assailed the judgment by way of this criminal revision.
7. During the course of arguments, the learned counsel Mr. M.K. Garg appearing for the accused-petitioner has prayed that he does not want to
go into the merits of the case and is not challenging the conviction part of the judgment. He only prays that looking to the fact that this matter
pertains to the year 1986, which is 30 years old; the accused has suffered mental trauma by facing criminal proceedings for such a long time; he is
now established in his life and society and the complainant has also settled after her re-marriage; the accused-petitioner Malkiat Singh is not a
habitual offender. The accused-Malkiat Singh should be extended the benefit of Probation of Offenders Act and if it is not possible, he should be
released for the period already undergone by him in confinement which is almost 15 days. The learned counsel for the accused-petitioner has
placed reliance on the judgment in the case of Murlidhar @ Murarilal v. State of Rajasthan reported in 2015 3 RLW (Raj.) 2108 in support of his
prayer.
8. The learned Public Prosecutor appearing for the State has opposed the prayer.
9. I have heard the learned counsels for both the sides and carefully perused the relevant material available on record.
10. It is admit that the incident is 30 years old and the accused-petitioner as well as the complainant are now separately settled in their families and
society. It is also worthy to note that five other accused-persons, who were other family members of the accused-petitioner, were already
acquitted of the charges on merit by the learned lower courts; and after a long gap of 30 years, it does not appear justified to send the accused-
petitioner behind the bars but looking to the nature of offence, it is also not proper to extend the benefit of probation to the accused. In my view,
the ends of justice would be met if the sentence awarded to the accused-petitioner is reduced to the period already undergone by him in
confinement, as indicated herein above. The above said judgment referred by the learned counsel for the accused-petitioner also fortifies this view.
Hence, this revision petition is disposed of with the following directions:-
(i) The conviction of the accused-petitioner as awarded by the learned Trial Court and also affirmed by the learned Appellate Court is maintained;
(ii) The sentence awarded to the accused-petitioner-Malkiat Singh is reduced to the period already undergone by him in confinement, as indicated
above;
(iii) The accused-petitioner is on bail, as the sentence was suspended, so he need not to surrender and his bail bonds stand cancelled.
11. The impugned judgment dated 17th May, 1996 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Hanumangarh stands modified as Indicated
herein above and this criminal revision is disposed of accordingly.
