Mohan Lal vs State (2023:Rj-Jd:32620)
2023 Latest Caselaw 7903 Raj

[2023:RJ-JD:32620]

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 583/2002

Mohan Lal S/o Shanker Lal Ji Meena, R/o Singhatwada, District Udaipur.

(At present lodged in Central Jail, Udaipur)

----Petitioner Versus State of Rajasthan

----Respondent

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Shambhoo Singh Ms. Heli Pathak on behalf of Mr. Nishant Bora For Respondent(s) : Mr. Shrawan Bishnoi, PP

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJ KUMAR GARG

Order

04/10/2023

Instant revision petition has been filed by the petitioner

challenging the judgment dated 23.07.2002 passed in Cr. Appeal

No.5/2002 by learned Addl. District and Sessions Judge (Fast

Tract), Udaipur (hereinafter referred to as 'the appellate court') by

which the appellate court partly allowed the appeal of the

petitioner and while confirming the conviction for offence under

Section 498A IPC, reduced the sentence as awarded by learned

Judicial Magistrate No.1, Udaipur (hereinafter referred to as 'the

trial court') in Regular Cr. Case No.550/2000 vide judgment dated

04.05.2002 and imposed a fine of Rs.500/- and in default of

payment of fine, further undergo one month S.I. The details of the

sentence of the petitioner as reduced by the appellate court are as

under :

[2023:RJ-JD:32620] (2 of 4) [CRLR-583/2002]

Offence U/s 498-A IPC : Six months' S.I. and fine of Rs.500/-,

in default of payment of fine, to further undergo one month's S.I.

Brief facts of the case are that on 14.08.2000, complainant

Tejki filed a complaint against his husband, present petitioner,

before Police Station Goverdhan Vilas, Udaipur inter-alia alleging

therein that she married with the petitioner nearly 7 years ago

and out of their wedlock, two sons Narendra and Laxman were

born. At the time of marriage, certain dowry articles were given

but his husband and in-laws were not happy and started

misbehaving with the complainant and also demanded

Rs.25,000/-. When the demand was not fulfilled, the complainant

was physically tortured by her in-laws and ultimately on

02.05.2000, she was ousted from her matrimonial home.

On this report, Police registered the FIR No.327/2000 and

started investigation. On completion of investigation, challan was

filed against the petitioner for offence under Section 498A IPC.

Thereafter, charges were framed by the learned trial court

against the petitioner, who pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.

During the course of trial, the prosecution examined as many

as 8 witnesses in support of its case. Thereafter, statement of the

accused-petitioner under section 313 Cr.P.C were recorded. In

defence, two witnesses were examined by the petitioner.

Upon conclusion of the trial, the learned trial court vide

impugned judgment dated 04.05.2002 convicted and sentenced

the accused-petitioner for aforesaid offence.

Being aggrieved by his conviction and sentence, the

petitioner preferred an appeal before the learned appellate court,

[2023:RJ-JD:32620] (3 of 4) [CRLR-583/2002]

which came to be partly allowed vide judgment dated 23.07.2002

and while confirming the conviction, the learned appellate court

reduced the sentence of the petitioner as mentioned above. Hence

this revision petition against the conviction and sentence of the

accused-petitioner.

At the threshold, learned counsel for the accused-petitioner

does not challenge the finding of conviction but it is submitted

that the occurrence relates back to year 2000 and the petitioner

has so far suffered sentence for about 15 days out of total

sentence. In such circumstances, it is prayed that the 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 2000 and the accused-petitioner has so far undergone a

period of about 15 days incarceration out of total sentence, and so

also suffered the 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

[2023:RJ-JD:32620] (4 of 4) [CRLR-583/2002]

time, it will be just and proper if the sentence awarded by the trial

court for offence under Sections 498A IPC and reduced by the

appellate court is reduced to the period already undergone by

him.

Accordingly, the criminal revision 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

undergone. The amount of fine of Rs.500/- imposed by the

appellate court is also waived. The petitioner is on bail. His bail

bonds stand discharged.

The record of the courts below be sent back forthwith.

(MANOJ KUMAR GARG),J 12-MS/-

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)