Monica & Anr. v. Mr.J.S.Toor, AAP, for UT, Chandigarh

who should be the first child of her parents and thereafter, his son would be well soon. Accordingly, the petitioners in connivance with their elder son, Ajay, kidnapped Karamjit Kaur and took her to Sonepat where they cut her hair and after mixing the hair with sandoor and ladoos placed them in the running water. Karamjit Kaur was also directed to utter some mantras. Section 298, IPC was also added. On completion of the investigation, the charge-sheet was presented against the petitioners and Jaswinder Singh. During trial, Jaswinder Singh absented himself and as such, he was declared as proclaimed offender vide order dated 04.07.2005. The petitioners were charged for the offences punishable under Sections 298, 363 and 384, IPC, to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed for trial. In order to prove its case, the prosecution examined the following witnesses:- PW1 :- Avinder Singh PW2 :- Narinder Singh PW3 :- Dr.Deepak Bakshi PW4 :- Sub Inspector Uday Pal Singh PW5 :- Gurcharan Singh PW6 :- Head Constable Ram Karan PW7 :- Karan Pal Singh, Assistant, from the office Criminal Revision No.2606 of 2012 (O&M) 5 District Registrar Births and Deaths, Municipal Corporation, UT, Chandigarh PW8 :- Sub Inspector Harbhajan Singh PW9 :- Rajesh Girdhar PW10:- Jaspreet Kaur PW11:- Meenakshi PW12:- Inspector Bhupinder Singh PW13:- Inspector Sukhbir Singh Rana PW14:- Saroj Kumari Daiya PW15:- Dr.Rajwinderjit Singh PW16:- Gurmail Singh After the prosecution evidence was over, statements of the petitioners were recorded in terms of Section 313, Cr.P.C. They denied the prosecution version and pleaded innocence. However, no evidence in defence was led. Learned trial court held the petitioners guilty for the offences punishable under Sections 298 and 363, IPC and sentenced them to undergo imprisonment as follows:- Offence Sentence 298, IPC 363, IPC Two months rigorous imprisonment One year rigorous imprisonment Both the sentences were ordered to run concurrently. The judgment of conviction and sentence was challenged before the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Chandigarh, who while dismissing the appeal reduced the sentence to rigorous imprisonment for six months. By way of present criminal revision petition, the petitioners have challenged the judgments passed by the two courts below. Criminal Revision No.2606 of 2012 (O&M) 6 The criminal revision petition came up for preliminary hearing before this Court on 03.09.2012. At that time the learned counsel for the petitioners very fairly proposed not to challenge the judgments of conviction on merits. However, he submitted that the sentence was on higher side, therefore, the notice of motion was issued with regard to consideration of quantum of sentence only. Learned counsel contended that the petitioners had committed the offence on account of a frustration suffered by them due to the long illness of their son. He further submitted that the kidnapped girl was not caused any harm by the petitioners. He further submitted that the petitioners had already suffered the protracted trial for approximately 12 years. He also submitted that petitioner No.2-Ravinder Kumar has suffered incarceration for 05 months and 02 days while petitioner No.1 had suffered incarceration for 03 months and 19 days. He also submitted that there is no other person in the family to look after their mentally retarded son and other children. Learned counsel for the State had produced the affidavits of the Deputy Superintendent, Model Jail, Chandigarh, showing the custody period suffered by the petitioners which were taken on record. Heard. Though, learned counsel for the petitioners had proposed not to challenge the judgment of conviction on merits but to satisfy the conscience of this Court, the material available Criminal Revision No.2606 of 2012 (O&M) 7 on record was appraised and it was found that both the courts below have correctly returned the verdict of guilt against the petitioners, therefore, no interference is called for in their conviction. However, keeping in view the following circumstances, some concession can be extended in the quantum of sentence:-

1. The petitioners are first offenders;

2. The petitioners have the minor children including a mentally retarded son and there is none in the family to lookafter them;

3. The petitioners have also suffered protracted trial and appeal for approximately 12 years;

4. During pendency of the trial and the appeal, the petitioners were released on bail but they did not misuse the said concession; and

5. Petitioner No.1 has suffered incarceration for 03 months and 19 days while petitioner No.2 has suffered 05 months and 02 days as on 16.10.2012 as per the affidavits of the Deputy Superintendent, Model Jail, Chandigarh. As a sequel to the above observations, the sentence of the petitioners is reduced to the period already undergone by them. They be set at liberty at once if not required to be in custody in any other case. 22nd October, 2012 (Naresh Kumar Sanghi) Judge