Monica and Another vs State of U.T

Naresh Kumar Sanghi, J.—Challenge in this revision petition is to the judgment dated 17.08.2012 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Chandigarh, whereby the appeal filed by the petitioners challenging the judgment of conviction and sentence dated 30.10.2010 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Chandigarh, was dismissed while reducing the sentence of rigorous imprisonment from one year to six months. Brief facts of the case are that on 22.03.2000, Karamjit Kaur @ Chinki, aged about 07 years, had gone out of her house for playing. She did not return till 5.00 p.m., therefore, her mother got worried and she informed her husband, Narinder Singh (PW-2), about missing of her minor daughter. The family members started searching Karamjit Kaur @ Chinki. Narinder Singh came to know that a boy, named, Ajay aged about 08 years, resident of Badheri, had been playing with Karamjit Kaur for the last 10 days. The petitioners are the parents of said Ajay. The complainant and his wife went to the house of the petitioners and found that they had vacated the house about a month ago. On inquiry from the landlord of the house, no clue was found about the missing girl. On further inquiry, the complainant came to know that petitioner No. 2 was working as a Carpenter at house No. 1064, Sector 36, Chandigarh. The owner of the said house told the complainant that from 22.03.2000 onwards, petitioner No. 2 was not coming to attend his work. The complainant suspected that his daughter, Karamjit Kaur, was abducted by the petitioners and his family members and as such, the matter was reported to the police. The missing news was flashed in the newspapers and resultantly, one Jaswinder Singh s/o Manjit Singh, r/o Kot Mohd. Khan, Tehsil Tarn Taran, Police Station, Sarali, District Amritsar, contacted complainant-Narinder Singh on telephone and demanded Rs. 50,000/- for the safe return of his minor daughter. He asked the complainant to place the money near Dusshera ground at Mohali. The police was informed about the said demand. The complainant along with police party went to the place as told by said Jawinder Singh. The complainant was asked to place the bundle of waste papers, wrapped in a blue colour bag, at the place told by Jaswinder Singh. The police party stayed at some distance. A person came on a scooter and picked up the bag. He was apprehended and he disclosed his name as Jaswinder Singh. He was arrested and Section 384, IPC was added. The scooter, on which Jaswinder Singh had arrived at the spot, was also taken into possession by the police.

On 02.11.2000, an information was received that the petitioners along with their family members were available at Karnal. Inspector Bhupinder Singh of the Crime Branch along with his team and complainant-Narinder Singh went to Karnal and laid a barrier near Karan Vihar Colony during the intervening night of 02/03.11.2000. At about 11.40 p.m., the petitioners along with their family members were seen coming from the main road who was identified by the secret informer. The petitioners were apprehended and after enquiry, they were arrested in the case.

On interrogation, petitioner-Ravinder Kumar suffered disclosure statement (Ex. PW2/C) to the effect that Karamjit Kaur @ Chinki was kidnapped by him with the help of his wife and she had been retained at the house of his relative at Sonepat and volunteered to get Karamjit Kaur recovered. During the same night, some of the police officials accompanied by the complainant and petitioner No. 1 went to the disclosed place at Sonepat where a lady, named, Saroj met the police party. She was running a creche in her house. Karamjit Kaur was recovered from one of the rooms of the said house who was identified by complainant-Narinder Singh. The police party took the minor girl in its custody vide recovery memo (Ex. PW2/D) and all of them came back to Chandigarh. After medical examination, Karamjit Kaur was handed over to her parents vide memo Ex. PW2/D.

During investigation it came to the notice of the police that petitioner-Ravinder Kumar had a son, namely, Vijay, who used to remain ill. One tantrik had told petitioner-Ravinder Kumar to immerse the hair of the young girl in the running water, 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 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:-

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.

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 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:-

The petitioners are first offenders;

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

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

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

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.