GURMAIL SINGH Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS revision petition is filed by Gurmail Kaur. The petitioner herein was convicted by Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Anandpur Sahib vide impugned judgment dated 12.3.2001 under Sections 211 and 193 of the Indian Penal Code. She has been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years with a fine of Rupees 500/- and in default whereof to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for three months under Section 193 of the Indian Penal Code and to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year with fine of Rupees 500/- and in default whereof to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for three months under section 211 of the Indian Penal Code. However, both the sentences were ordered to run concurrently. Against the judgment of conviction and sentence passed by the learned trial Court, the petitioner preferred an appeal and the same also stands dismissed vide impugned judgment dated 13.8.2001, passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Roopnagar. Hence, this revision petition.

(2.) THE brief facts of this case can be culled out as under :- The present petitioner had filed a complaint under sections 323, 324/34, 354, 452, 376 of the Indian Penal Code read with section 511 I.P.C. before the Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Anandpur Sahib, alleging therein that her husband had obtained a stay order from the court of Sub Judge Ist Class, Anandpur Sahib against Ram Lubhaya and Bittu in a civil suit titled as "Bachittar Ram alias Bachint Ram and others v. Ram Lubhaya and others" and on account of the said stay order, Ram Lubhaya was nursing a grudge against the family of the petitioner, and on 4.3.1989, when her husband had gone out of the house in connection with some animal festival at Kurali, at about 7.00 P.M. Ram Lubhaya and Bittu entered in/her house and started abusing the petitioner and her husband and told her that her husband should withdraw the civil suit, otherwise they would indulge him in such an act that the petitioner and her family would remember for generations to come. It was then alleged in the said complaint filed by the petitioner that Bittu had gagged her mouth with a cloth and Ram Lubhaya caught hold of her. On her cries, Hukma had reached there and escaped the petitioner from the clutches of Ram Lubhaya and Bittu. It was then alleged by the petitioner in the complaint that Ram Lubhaya and Bittu torn her clothes. After the filing of criminal complaint, the preliminary evidence of the petitioner and her other witnesses was recorded and thereafter Ram Lubhaya and Bittu both were summoned to face trial. Since it was a case under section 376, IPC the same was committed to the Court of Sessions and ultimately, Ram Lubhaya and Bittu were acquitted by the trial court on January 3, 1991. While acquitting Ram Lubhaya and Bittu, it was so observed by the trial Court that the petitioner had falsely implicated both the accused on account of the civil litigation between the parties and no incident as alleged by the petitioner had ever happened. Ram Lubhaya after his acquittal moved an application before the trial court making a prayer that the petitioner, her husband Bachint Ram and one Hukma who had appeared as PW. 3 and PW. 4, should be convicted under sections 193 and 211 of the Indian Penal Code for giving false evidence against them. The learned trial court thereafter sent the complaint to the concerned court for initiating action against the present petitioner, her husband and Hukma according to law. Consequently, the petitioner and two other persons were summoned to face trial. On consideration of the entire evidence, the petitioner and Hukma were convicted and sentenced as indicated above. It is pertinent to mention here that Bachint Ram alias Bachittar Ram, the husband of the petitioner had died during the pendency of the trial.

(3.) I have heard Shri Vijay Lath, learned counsel for the petitioner and Shri H.P. Singh Raja, the learned Assistant Advocate General, Punjab and with their assistance, I have also gone through the record of the case.