HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
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)
State, Through Pp
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Dharmendra Surana
For Respondent(s) : Mr. OP Rathi, PP
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJ KUMAR GARG
Judgment / Order
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
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
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
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)