KAMAL JYOTI Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard.

(2.) The petitioners/accused, Kamal Jyuoti and Ashok Puri, have preferred this revision against the judgment dated 12.11.2009 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Jalandhar, vide which he dismissed the appeal preferred by the accused against the judgment dated 13.6.2007 passed by the SDJM, Nakodar, vide which the accused were convicted for the offence under Section 500 IPC and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of two years and to pay fine of Rs. 3,000/- each. The facts, in brief, are that Gurdev Kaur-respondent No.2/complainant filed a complaint against the petitioners under Sections 500 and 109 IPC, contending therein that the petitioners got published a news item in their newspaper 'Ekta Lehar Weekly' on 29.8.1999 reporting therein that she had illicit relations with one Malkeet Singh and when they were being prevented from indulging in those illicit relations by her son, then in order to remove that hurdle, both of them killed him. According to the complainant, that news item was false and was published by the petitioners in order to defame her and to lower her prestige in the eyes of the general public. After reading that news, her relatives started disassociating with her. To prove her case in the trial court, the complainant examined herself as CW-1 and Dalip Singh as CW-2. An opportunity was given to the petitioners, by recording their statements under Section 313 of the Criminal Procedure Code (hereinafter referred to as the Code), to explain the circumstances appearing against them in the evidence of the complainant. They were called upon to enter on their defence and they tendered bed head ticket with regard to Karam Singh Ex. D.1, copy of DDR Ex. D2, copy of voter card Ex. D3 copy of passport Ex. D4 and copy of ration Card Ex. D5, in their defence. In view of the evidence produced on record, learned trial court recorded finding of conviction and sentence against the petitioners. They preferred an appeal, which was dismissed. Thereafter, the petitioners have come up with this revision. Notice of the revision was given to the respondents. I have heard learned counsel for the parties.

(3.) At the time of arguments only order of sentence passed against the petitioners was challenged. It was argued on their behalf that they were the first offenders and are the sole bread earners of their family. No reason was recorded by the trial court for not extending the benefit of probation, though a prayer was made in this regard on their behalf. He states that the sentence imposed upon the petitioners be set aside and they be released on probation and that the complainant can well be compensated by way of costs.