Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Abdul Rasid @ Rasid Ahmed vs State (2023:Rj-Jd:43367) on 12 December, 2023
Author: Manoj Kumar Garg
Bench: Manoj Kumar Garg
[2023:RJ-JD:43367]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 420/2013
Abdul Rasid @ Rasid Ahmed S/o Gulam Haider Ali, Aged 33
years, B/c Muslim, R/o 68 Jumma Maszid Road, Pali, District Pali.
(Presently lodged at District Jail, Pali)
----Petitioner
Versus
State of Rajasthan through PP
----Respondent
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Ashok Kumar
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Mukesh Trivedi, PP with
Mr. CP Marwan
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJ KUMAR GARG
Judgment
12/12/2023
Instant revision petition under Section 397/401 Cr.P.C. has
been filed by the petitioner challenging the judgment dated
02.07.2013 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sojat,
District Pali (hereinafter referred to as 'the appellate court') in
Criminal Appeal No.30/2012 by which the appellate court
dismissed the appeal of the petitioner and upheld the judgment
dated 04.09.2012 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate,
Sojat, District Pali (hereinafter referred to as 'the trial court') in
Criminal Regular Case No.736/2007, whereby, the learned trial
court convicted the petitioner for offence under Section 498A IPC
and sentenced him to undergo six months' S.I. and a fine of
Rs.1,000/-, in default of payment of fine, further undergo one
month's S.I.
[2023:RJ-JD:43367] (2 of 4) [CRLR-420/2013]
Brief facts of the case are that on 10.09.2007, complainant
Shahnaj Bano submitted a complaint before the concerned court
to the effect that she was subjected to cruelty by her husband and
in-laws for dowry. The concerned court sent the complaint to the
concerned Police Station under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. Upon which,
the police registered the case against the accused persons
including the present petitioner and started investigation.
On completion of investigation, the police filed challan
against the accused persons including the petitioner for offences
under Sections 498A, 406, 323 IPC. Thereafter, the charges of the
case were framed against the accused persons including the
petitioner, who denied the charges and claimed trial.
During the course of trial, the prosecution examined six
witnesses. Thereafter, statements of the accused persons
including the petitioner under section 313 Cr.P.C were recorded.
Upon conclusion of the trial, the learned trial court vide
impugned judgment dated 04.09.2012 convicted and sentenced
the accused-petitioner for offences as mentioned earlier.
Aggrieved by his conviction and sentence, the petitioner
preferred an appeal before the learned appellate court, which
came to be dismissed vide judgment dated 02.07.2013. Hence
this revision petition.
At the threshold, counsel for the petitioner does not
challenge the finding of conviction but it is submitted that the
occurrence relates back to year 2007 and he has so far suffered a
sentence of about four days, out of total sentence of six months'
S.I. Further, compromise has already been arrived at between the
parties. In such circumstances, it is prayed that the substantive
[2023:RJ-JD:43367] (3 of 4) [CRLR-420/2013]
sentence awarded to the accused-petitioner for the offence under
Section 498A IPC 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 accused-
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 evidence of the prosecution as well as
defence and the judgment passed by the courts below regarding
conviction of the accused-petitioner.
It is not disputed that the occurrence has taken place in the
year 2007 and the accused-petitioner has so far undergone a
period of four days incarceration, out of total sentence of six
months' S.I. and compromise has also been arrived at between
the parties, and so also the appellant suffered the mental agony
and trauma of protracted trial. Thus, looking to the over-all
circumstances and the fact that the accused-petitioner has
remained behind the bars for considerable time, it will be just and
proper if the sentence awarded by the trial court for offence under
Section 498A IPC and affirmed by the appellate court is reduced to
the period already undergone by him while maintaining the
amount of fine.
Accordingly, the criminal revision petition is partly allowed.
While maintaining the petitioner's conviction and sentence for
offence under Section 498A IPC, the sentence awarded to him for
aforesaid offence is hereby reduced to the period already
[2023:RJ-JD:43367] (4 of 4) [CRLR-420/2013]
undergone. The amount of fine is hereby maintained. Three
months' time is granted to deposit the fine before the trial court.
In default of payment of fine, the petitioner shall undergo one
month's simple imprisonment. The petitioner is on bail. He need
not surrender. His bail bonds stand discharged.
The record of the courts below be sent back forthwith.
(MANOJ KUMAR GARG),J
255-MS/-
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
