Page 1

Crl.A. @ S.L.P(Crl.)No.3695 of 2013 etc.

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.

1. Heard the parties.  Leave granted.

2. 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.

1

Page 2

Crl.A. @ S.L.P(Crl.)No.3695 of 2013 etc.

3. 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.

4. 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

2

Page 3

Crl.A. @ S.L.P(Crl.)No.3695 of 2013 etc.

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.

5. 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.

6. 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.

3

Page 4

Crl.A. @ S.L.P(Crl.)No.3695 of 2013 etc.

7. 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.  

8. 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