SUBHASH CHANDER Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) CHALLENGED in the present revision is the judgment dated 28.10.2014 passed by learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Sri Muktsar Sahib affirming the judgment and order dated 02.03.2013 passed by leaned Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Malout, whereby the revisionist was convicted under Section 498 -A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (in short 'IPC') and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year and to pay a fine of Rs. 2,000/ -, in default thereof to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for two months, while acquitted co -accused Jagdish Kumar, Bimla Devi and Tinku, father -in -law, mother -in -law and brother -in -law of the complainant, respectively, in a criminal complaint case bearing No.58 -1, dated 10.04.2008 filed by Raj Rani wife of accused -revisionist Subhash Chander, under Sections 406 and 498 -A IPC.

(2.) THE facts necessary for the purpose of disposal of the present revision are being mentioned in the present order. The parties were married in November 2002 at Malout. In the complaint, the allegations were levelled against husband Subhash Chander as well as father -in -law, mother -in -law and brother -in -law of the complainant about the entrustment of different dowry articles and misappropriation thereof, which pertains to Section 406 IPC. Regarding allegation of cruelty, it was stated that accused were greedy persons and they started beating and taunting her (complainant) on account of bringing less dowry. On raising demand of Rs. .50,000/ -, the complainant told the accused that her father is no more and her parental family is hand to mouth and cannot fulfill their demand. On this, all the accused confined her in a room and gave her beatings and threatened to kill her.

(3.) IN February, 2007, all the accused gave beatings to the complainant and turned her out from the matrimonial house. After fifteen days, a Panchayat was convened, in which Rs. 50,000/ - were again demanded. The accused also refused to rehabilitate the complainant. After recording the preliminary evidence, accused were summoned under Sections 406 and 498 -A IPC. Thereafter, the precharge evidence was recorded and the accused were charge - sheeted under Section 498 -A IPC, to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.