CHARANJIT KAUR Vs. BIKRAM SINGH & ANR.

Supreme Court of India (Division Bench (DB)- Two Judge)

Appeal (Crl.), 212 of 2016, Judgment Date: Mar 10, 2016

REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.212 OF 2016
[Arising out of S.L.P.(Crl.)No.3695 of 2013]

Charanjit Kaur …..Appellant

Versus

Bikram Singh & Anr. …..Respondents

W I T H

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.213 OF 2016
[Arising out of S.L.P.(Crl.)No.3694 of 2013]

J U D G M E N T

SHIVA KIRTI SINGH, J.

Heard the parties. Leave granted.
Various shades of life at times create so much impact that even a
disinterested person gets shaken and tends to recall the clichéd statement
that truth can be stranger than fiction. At least in the Indian society, a
wife, come what may, is perceived to be the ultimate caretaker of her
family and particularly the husband. But cruel acts of the husband and the
in-laws can turn the situation upside down. The essential brief facts of
this case amply justify the aforesaid observations.
The appellant is wife of respondent no.1. Harassed and tortured on account
of greed for dowry, she was hounded out of the matrimonial house and was
forced by such circumstances to lodge a criminal case under Section 498A,
406 and 120B of the IPC when all hopes of compromise sought to be achieved
through numerous rounds of Panchayat by the elders of the two families
failed to yield any result and allegedly even ornaments and streedhan of
the appellant were not returned to her. During trial the father-in-law
expired and mother-in-law was acquitted but the husband, respondent no.1
herein was convicted and awarded R.I. for one year for each of the offence
under Section 406 and 498A of the IPC and also a fine of Rs.1000/- with a
default clause of R.I. for 15 days. The sentences were ordered to run
concurrently.
The appellant preferred an appeal against the acquittal of mother-in-law as
well as for enhancing the punishment awarded to the husband. State also
appealed against acquittal whereas respondent no.1 preferred appeal against
his conviction. All the three appeals were dismissed by the learned
Sessions Judge, Kapurthala and the judgment and order of the learned
Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Phagwara dated 30.07.2007 in R.T. No.8 of
23.5.2007 arising out of FIR No.8 dated 8.1.2002 of P.S. Sadar, Phagwara
was affirmed with a modification in the sentence awarded to Bikram Singh,
respondent no.1. He was shown marked leniency in view of a plea that in
case he is sent to jail he may lose his Government job. The Sessions
Court, on the aforesaid ground permitted him to deposit Rs.2,50,000/-
payable to the appellant within one month and if such deposit is made then
he was to get the benefit of probation bond under Section 4(1) of the
Probation of Offenders Act, 1958.
Against the aforesaid judgment and order of the Additional Sessions Judge,
Kapurthala dated 16.12.2010 the appellant preferred Crl. Revision No.803 of
2011 in the High Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh which has been
dismissed virtually in a summary manner by the order under appeal dated
March 12, 2012.
On behalf of the appellant, a number of submissions have been advanced to
assail the impugned order. It has been contended that considering the
nature of the offence, no leniency should have been shown to the respondent
no.1 after his conviction was affirmed for offences under Sections 498A and
406 of the IPC. The appellant claims that she did not withdraw the fine of
Rs.1000/- awarded by the trial court or the amount of Rs.2,50,000/- awarded
by the appellate court. The High Court appears to have been influenced by
a wrong presumption that there was still a chance to save the marriage
although the fact is otherwise and would have been clear if High Court had
granted an opportunity to the appellant to express her feelings and view in
the matter.
Without expressing any opinion on the pleas advanced on behalf of the
appellant and the reply advanced on behalf of respondents, after going
through the order under appeal and noticing the summary manner in which the
Revision has been dismissed only after noticing that Rs.2,50,000/- has been
deposited, we are of the firm view that the impugned order needs to be set
aside so that the matter may be sent back to the High Court for re-hearing
the parties and fresh decision on merits. We order accordingly. The
appeal arising out of S.L.P.(Crl.)No.3695 of 2013 is allowed to the
aforesaid extent. Be it noted that we have not gone into the merits of
rival submissions and the High Court would be free to take its own decision
in matter strictly in accordance with law.
This order shall govern the appeal arising out of S.L.P.(Crl.)No.3694 of
2013, also.

.…………………………………….J.
[DIPAK MISRA]

……………………………………..J.
[SHIVA KIRTI SINGH]

New Delhi.
March 10, 2016.
-----------------------
4

Back to Judgments