Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Ram Chandra vs State (2025:Rj-Jd:18359) on 9 April, 2025
Author: Manoj Kumar Garg
Bench: Manoj Kumar Garg
[2025:RJ-JD:18359]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 583/2006
Ram Chandra S/o Shankar Lal R/o Village Badarda, Tehsil
Rajsamand, P.S. Raj Nagar, Dist. Rajsamand.
----Petitioner
Versus
State of Rajasthan
----Respondent
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Bajrang Singh
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Pawan Kumar Bhati, PP
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJ KUMAR GARG
Judgment
09/04/2025
1. Instant revision petition has been filed by the petitioner
challenging the judgment dated 06.07.2006 passed in Cr. Appeal
No.44/2006 by learned Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track),
Rajsamand (hereinafter referred to as 'the appellate court') by
which the appellate court dismissed the petitioner's appeal and
upheld the judgment dated 17.01.2006 passed in Regular Criminal
Case No.20/2003 by learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Rajsamand
(hereinafter referred to as 'the trial court') whereby, the learned
trial court convicted the present petitioner for offence under
Section 498-A IPC and sentenced him to undergo 6 months' S.I.
and imposed a fine of Rs.1,000/- and in default of payment of
fine, to further undergo one month's S.I.
2. Brief facts of the case are that on 02.01.2003, the
complainant - Manju filed an FIR at Police Station Rajnagar to the
extent that she got married with the petitioner on 28.02.2002 and
[2025:RJ-JD:18359] (2 of 4) [CRLR-583/2006]
after marriage the petitioner and her in-laws started torturing and
harassing complainant for dowry. Thereafter, the complainant was
kicked out of her marital house and her husband threatened her
that he will get marry to some other woman. Upon the aforesaid
information, an FIR was registered and after usual investigation,
charge-sheet came to be submitted against the petitioner in the
Court concerned.
3. On completion of investigation, the Police filed challan before
the concerned court. Thereafter, the trial court framed the charges
for offence under Sections 494, 498-A & 406 of IPC against the
petitioner who pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
4. During the course of trial, the prosecution examined as many
as 10 witnesses in support of its case and exhibited certain
documents. Thereafter, statements of the accused-petitioner
under section 313 Cr.P.C were recorded. In defence, two witnesses
were examined.
5. Upon conclusion of the trial, the learned trial court vide
impugned judgment dated 17.01.2006 convicted and sentenced
the accused-petitioner for aforesaid offence.
6. Being aggrieved by the conviction and sentence, the
petitioners preferred an appeal before the learned appellate court,
which came to be dismissed vide judgment dated 06.07.2006.
Hence, this revision petition against the conviction and sentence of
the accused-petitioner.
7. At the threshold, learned counsel for the accused-petitioner
submits that he does not challenge the finding of conviction but
since the occurrence is related to the year 2003 and out of total
sentence of six months' S.I., the accused petitioner has already
[2025:RJ-JD:18359] (3 of 4) [CRLR-583/2006]
served about one month of imprisonment, therefore, it is prayed
that the sentence awarded to the petitioner for the aforesaid
offence may be reduced to the period already undergone by him.
8. On the other hand, learned Public Prosecutor opposed the
submissions made by the learned counsel for the accused-
petitioner and 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.
9. 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.
10. Undisputedly, the incident relates back to the year 2003 and
the petitioner has so far undergone a period of about one month
in custody out of six months 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 some time, it will be just and proper, if the
sentence awarded by the trial court for offence under Section 498-
A of IPC and affirmed by the appellate court is reduced to the
period already undergone by the petitioner.
11. Accordingly, the revision petition is partly allowed. While
maintaining the petitioner's conviction for offence under Section
498-A of IPC, the sentence awarded to him for the aforesaid
offence is hereby reduced to the period already undergone. The
fine amount is hereby maintained. The amount of fine imposed by
the trial Court, if not already deposited by the petitioner, then two
months' time is hereby granted to deposit the fine amount before
[2025:RJ-JD:18359] (4 of 4) [CRLR-583/2006]
the trial Court. In default of payment of fine, the petitioner shall
undergo one month's S.I.
12. The petitioner is on bail. He need not surrender. His bail
bonds are discharged.
13. Pending applications, if any, shall stand disposed of.
14. The record courts below be sent back forthwith.
(MANOJ KUMAR GARG),J
16-Rashi/-
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
