HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Criminal Revision No. 1283/2018

Mohd. Sabir S/o Shri Sakir Mohd., Aged About 28 Years, B/c
Musalman R/o Aakaliya Chouraha, Nadi Mohalla, Jodhpur (At
Present Lodged In Central Jail, Jodhpur)

—-Petitioner
Versus
State, Through Pp

—-Respondent

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Dharmendra Surana
For Respondent(s) : Mr. OP Rathi, PP

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJ KUMAR GARG

Judgment / Order

18/12/2018

Instant revision petition has been filed by the petitioner

challenging the judgment dated 18.07.2018 passed by learned

Addl. Sessions Judge No.4, Jodhpur Metropolitan (hereinafter

referred to as ‘the appellate court’) by which the appellate court

upheld the judgment dated 01.02.2017 passed by the learned

Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate No.6, Jodhpur Metropolitan

(hereinafter referred to as ‘the trial court’) whereby, the learned

trial court convicted the present petitioner for offence under

Section 498A IPC and sentenced to undergo one year simple

imprisonment and also imposed fine of Rs.500/- and in default of

payment of fine, learned trial court ordered to further undergo 15

days additional S.I.

Briefly stated the facts of the case are that on 14.05.2012

the complainant Smt. Baby Anjuman filed a complaint before the

learned Judicial Magistrate No.2, Jodhpur alleging therein that her
(2 of 4) [CRLR-1283/2018]

marriage was solemnized with the present petitioner on

27.07.2005 and at the time of marriage sufficient dowry was given

by her father to the petitioner. After the marriage, the petitioner

and his family members started harassing the complainant for

brining less dowry and demanded more dowry. The petitioner and

his family members turned her out from the matrimonial home.

The said complaint was sent to the Mahila Police Station, Jodhpur

under Section 156(3) Cr.P.c. and on the basis of the said complaint

FIR No.136/2012 was registered by the Police and started

investigation.

After investigation, Police filed challan against the petitioner

for offences under Sections 498-A, 406, 323 IPC. Thereafter

charges were framed by the trial court against the petitioner for

the aforesaid offences. The petitioner pleaded not guilty and

claimed trial.

At the trial, the prosecution examined as many as five

witnesses in support of its case. Thereafter statement of the

petitioner was recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. No witness was

examined on the defence side.

After conclusion of the trial, the learned trial court convicted

the accused-petitioner for offence under Section 498A IPC and

acquitted him for offences under Sections 406 and 323 IPC vide

judgment dated 01.02.2017.

Aggrieved by the judgment and order dated 01.02.2017,

passed by the learned trial court, an appeal was preferred before

the learned Addl. Sessions Judge No.4, Jodhpur Metropolitan,

which came to be dismissed vide judgment dated 18.07.2018.

At the threshold, learned counsel for the petitioner submits

that he does not challenge the finding of conviction but since the
(3 of 4) [CRLR-1283/2018]

accused petitioner is behind the bars since 13.11.2018 i.e. for

more than one month and the occurrence was taken place as back

as in the year 2012, therefore, it is prayed that the substantive

sentence awarded to the petitioner for the aforesaid offence may

be reduced to the period already undergone by him.

On the other hand, the learned Public Prosecutor opposed

the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner.

The learned PP submitted that there is neither any occasion to

interfere with the sentence awarded to the accused petitioner nor

any compassion or sympathy is called for in the said case.

I have perused the judgments passed by both the courts

below regarding conviction of the accused-petitioner.

It is not disputed that the accused petitioner was sentenced

to a period of one year simple imprisonment, however, the

petitioner has so far undergone a period of more than one month

in custody out of one year of total sentence, so also suffered the

agony and trauma of protracted trial. Thus, looking to the over-all

circumstances and the fact that the petitioner has remained

behind the bars for more than one month now, it will be just and

proper if the sentence awarded by the trial court for offence under

Section 498A IPC is reduced from one year to the period already

undergone by the petitioner.

In the case of Mohd. Haroon Vs. State, decided on

24.03.1999 in Criminal Appeal No.571/1998, this Court while

maintaining the conviction of the accused for offence under

Section 498A IPC, reduced the sentence to the period already

undergone by the accused, which is more than 1 ½ month. In the

present case also, the accused-petitioner has suffered more than

one month sentence out of total sentence of one years.

(4 of 4) [CRLR-1283/2018]

Accordingly, the revision petition is partly allowed. While

maintaining the petitioner’s conviction for offence under Section

498A IPC, the sentence awarded to him is hereby reduced to the

period already undergone by him. So far as the fine imposed by

the trial court is concerned, the same is enhanced from Rs.500/-

to Rs.2,000/-, in default of payment of fine, the petitioner will

undergo two months simple imprisonment. The fine amount shall

be disbursed to the complainant Baby Anjuman. The accused-

petitioner is in custody and shall be released on payment of fine, if

not required in any other case.

The record of trial Court as well as the appellate court be

sent back forthwith.

(MANOJ KUMAR GARG),J
109-MS/-

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)