TAJINDER SINGH Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) TAJINDER Singh, who was married with Gurmit Kaur - complainant, has filed the present revision petition against judgment dated 17.10.2002, whereby the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Amritsar has modified the judgment dated 6.3.2002 passed by the trial Court wherein the trial Court has convicted the petitioner under Sections 406/498 -A IPC and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of two years and to pay fine of Rs.500/ - and in default of payment of fine, to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for month, and thereby reduced the sentence to undergo imprisonment for a period of 6 months under Section 498 -A IPC and to pay fine of Rs.500/ - and in default of payment of fine, to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for one month while setting aside the conviction awarded under Section 406 IPC.

(2.) THE brief facts of the case are that Smt. Gurmit Kaur - complainant has made as statement that her marriage was performed with the petitioner - Tajinder Singh (accused) on 21.1.1993. Her father gave sufficient dowry as per his capacity, which included jewellery, Godrej almirah, sofa set, dressing table, double beds, iron peti and other domestic articles of daily use. The other accused namely Naresh Rani and Gurcharan Singh, the real aunt and uncle of her husband Tajinder Singh had performed their marriage as her mother -in -law and father -in -law respectively. However, immediately after the marriage, the petitioner Tajinder Singh, Naresh Rani and Gurcharan Singh used to beat the complainant at her matrimonial house. They compelled the complainant to bring colour T.V. and fridge. The complainant though did not write any letter to her parents about the beatings caused to her by the accused, but she used to convey the behavior of the above -named accused. She was fed up with the beatings at the hands of the accused persons. Finally, she was turned out from her matrimonial house in the month of December, 1993. She came to her parents house at Fatehgarh Churian and suffered a statement that although her parents along with respectables of her caste and Panchayat members used to go to her matrimonial house but the accused persons never heard the complainant and her parents. Naresh Rani rather used to ask the complainant to sign the papers for divorce. Accordingly, on the statement of the complainant, case was registered against the accused.

(3.) THE prosecution in order to substantiate the offences examined as many as eight witnesses and finally, closed the prosecution evidence on 13.12.2001.