Punjab-Haryana High Court
Krishna vs State Of Haryana & Anr on 3 September, 2024
Author: Karamjit Singh
Bench: Karamjit Singh
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:116466
CRR-4084-2014 [1]
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
CRR-4084-2014
Date of decision: 03.09.2024
Krishna ...Petitioner
Versus
State of Haryana and Another ...Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KARAMJIT SINGH
Present: Mr. Vishal Garg Narwana, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr. Karan Garg, AAG, Haryana.
****
KARAMJIT SINGH, J. (ORAL)
1. The present revision petition has been filed by the petitioner
against the judgment dated 08.12.2014 passed by the Court of Additional
Sessions Judge, Bhiwani vide which the appeal filed by the petitioner
against the judgment and order dated 31.10.2011 passed by the Court of
Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Bhiwani whereby the petitioner was convicted
and sentenced to RI for a period of 2 years and to pay a fine of Rs.1000/-
and in default of payment of fine to further undergo simple imprisonment
for a period of 1 month under Section 420 IPC, was dismissed.
2. The brief facts of the case of complainant are that
complainant/respondent No.2 filed private criminal complaint against the
present petitioner alleging that he is resident of Ward No.12, Tosham,
District Bhiwani. The petitioner contested election for the post Panch from
Ward No.12 which were held in July 2006 against a vacancy reserved for
Harijan female candidate and she was elected against the said post. At the
time of filing of her nomination, the petitioner furnished an affidavit to the
effect that she was having only two living children. It was further alleged in
the complaint that actually petitioner at the time of filing of nomination
papers was having three children namely Mangal Singh, Sukhram Singh and
1 of 4
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:116466
CRR-4084-2014 [2]
Kumari Pratibha and their detail is given in her ration card. In this way,
petitioner had given false affidavit and thus, cheated the government
authorities. The complainant reported the matter to the police but no action
was taken.
3. On completion of preliminary evidence, the Court of Illaqa
Magistrate concerned summoned the petitioner to face trial under Section
420 IPC. In pursuance thereof, petitioner appeared and was released on bail
by the Court concerned.
4. In pre-charge evidence, complainant examined PW-1 Anil
Kumar and PW-3 Prabhu Ram Advocate and he himself appeared in the
witness box as PW-2.
5. Finding a prima facie case against the petitioner, charge under
Section 420 IPC was framed to which she pleaded not guilty and claimed
trial.
6. During the post-charge proceedings, the complainant was
further cross-examined by the defence counsel. The complainant closed his
evidence.
7. Statement of petitioner under Section 313 Cr.P.C. was recorded
wherein she pleaded false implication and claimed innocence. The
petitioner had not led any evidence in her defence.
8. After hearing, the counsel for the parties, learned trial Court
convicted and sentenced the petitioner under Section 420 IPC as has been
detailed in the opening paragraph of the present judgment.
9. Being aggrieved, petitioner filed appeal assailing the judgment
of conviction and order of sentence passed by the trial Court. The
complainant filed separate appeal seeking enhancement of sentence
imposed by the trial Court. Both the appeals were dismissed by the
appellate Court vide common judgment dated 08.12.2014.
10. Being not satisfied, petitioner has filed the present revision
petition.
11. The counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was
falsely implicated in the present case and that there is no authentic
document available on the record to establish that petitioner was having
2 of 4
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:116466
CRR-4084-2014 [3]
three children at the time when she filed her nomination papers to contest
election for the post of Panch against seat reserved for female Scheduled
Caste candidate. The counsel for the petitioner further submits that if, the
Court comes to the conclusion that petitioner was rightly convicted under
Section 420 IPC, in that case, the petitioner be given concession of
probation. It is further submitted that petitioner is a senior citizen and
belongs to weaker section of the society and is having no criminal
antecedents. The counsel for the petitioner further submits that in
alternative, the petitioner may be sentenced to imprisonment for a period
already undergone by her.
12. On the other hand, the State counsel while supporting the
judgment dated 31.10.2011 passed by the learned trial Court and upheld by
the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Bhiwani submits that sufficient
evidence is available on the record to establish that at the time of filing her
nomination papers, petitioner submitted false affidavit with regard to total
number of her children. The State counsel further submits that the revision
petition deserves to be dismissed.
13. I have considered the submissions made by counsel for the
parties.
14. In all prosecution examined, three witnesses including the
official witness who produced the summoned record including birth
certificates of three children of the petitioner and her ration card wherein
also three children were shown as members of her family. Even the
execution of the affidavit in question which was found to be false, also
stands proved on the record. Thus, the judgment of conviction passed by the
trial Court and judgment dated 08.12.2014 passed by the Court of
Additional Sessions Judge, Bhiwani are hereby upheld.
15. The petitioner has suffered the agony of trial for more than 15
years. Undoubtedly, petitioner belongs to Scheduled Caste community and
as per counsel for the petitioner, she is a senior citizen. The petitioner is
having no criminal antecedents. As per custody certificate, petitioner
remained in custody for a period of more than three months, out of which
post conviction period is about two months. Fine imposed by the trial Court
3 of 4
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:116466
CRR-4084-2014 [4]
has already been paid.
16. Taking into consideration, the facts and circumstances of the
case and further the fact that the petitioner belongs to weaker section of
society, it can be said that the ends of justice will be met, if the petitioner is
released on the sentence already undergone by her.
17. Consequently, the present petition is partly accepted and the
petitioner is sentenced to imprisonment for a period already undergone by
her. The sentence of the petitioner was suspended vide order dated
30.01.2015. Her surety stands discharged.
03.09.2024 (KARAMJIT SINGH)
Yogesh JUDGE
Whether speaking/reasoned:- Yes/No
Whether reportable:- Yes/No
4 of 4
