[ad_1]
Rajasthan High Court – Jodhpur
Raju Ram And Anr vs State (2025:Rj-Jd:32504) on 23 July, 2025
Author: Manoj Kumar Garg
Bench: Manoj Kumar Garg
[2025:RJ-JD:32504]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 1230/2008
1. Raju Ram S/o Shri Veeraram
2. Smt. Khami Devi W/o Hemaram,
Both B/c Jat, R/o Bisarniya, Tehsil Chouhtan, District Barmer.
(lodged in District Jail, Barmer)
----Petitioners
Versus
State of Rajasthan
----Respondent
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. KC Choudhary
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Deepak Choudhary, AAG assisted
by Mr. KS Kumpawat
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJ KUMAR GARG
Judgment
23/07/2025
Instant revision petition under Section 397/401 Cr.P.C. has
been filed by the petitioners challenging the judgment dated
12.11.2008 passed by learned Additional Session Judge, (Fast
Track), Balotra, Headquarter Barmer in Criminal Appeal No.6/2007
(Old No.5/2007) by which the appellate court dismissed the
appeal of the petitioners and upheld the judgment dated
25.01.2007 passed by the learned Additional Chief Judicial
Magistrate, Barmer in Cr. Case No.751/2003, whereby, the learned
trial court convicted the petitioners for offence under Sections
498A & 323/34 IPC and sentenced them as under :
Offence Sentence Fine Default sentence Sec. 498A IPC 1 year SI Rs.500/- 1 month SI Sec. 323/34 IPC 3 months SI Rs.200/- 15 days days SI (Downloaded on 24/07/2025 at 09:51:43 PM) [2025:RJ-JD:32504] (2 of 4) [CRLR-1230/2008]
Both the sentences were ordered to run concurrently.
Brief facts of the case are that complainant Bhikhi Devi
submitted a complaint before the concerned Court to the effect
that her marriage was solemnized with the petitioner No.1
Rajuram about five years ago. After some time of marriage,
complainant came to know about the illicit relation of her husband
(petitioner No.1) with her sister-in-law (bhabhi), petitioner No.2.
Upon opposing, both the petitioners started harassing the
complainant, mentally and physically, for dowry and also gave
beatings and subsequently, they ousted the complainant from the
matrimonial home.
The said complaint was forwarded to Police Station Sadar,
Barmer under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. Upon which, FIR for offence
under Sections 498A & 323 IPC was registered and investigation
commenced.
On completion of investigation, the police filed the challan for
offence under Sections 498A & 323 IPC. Thereafter, the trial court
framed the charge against the accused-petitioners. They denied
the charge and claimed trial.
During the course of trial, the prosecution examined seven
witnesses and also exhibited certain documents. Thereafter,
statements of the accused-petitioners were recorded under section
313 Cr.P.C.
Upon conclusion of the trial, the learned trial court vide
impugned judgment dated 25.01.2007 convicted and sentenced
the accused-petitioners for offence under Sections 498A & 323/34
of IPC.
(Downloaded on 24/07/2025 at 09:51:43 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:32504] (3 of 4) [CRLR-1230/2008]
Aggrieved by their conviction and sentence, the petitioners
preferred an appeal before the learned appellate court, which
came to be dismissed vide judgment dated 12.11.2008. Hence
this revision petition.
At the threshold, counsel for the petitioners does not
challenge the finding of conviction but it is submitted that the
occurrence relates back to year 2003 and the petitioner has so far
suffered a sentence of about eleven days, out of total sentence of
one year S.I. In such circumstances, it is prayed that the
substantive sentence awarded to the accused-petitioners for the
offence under Sections 498A & 323/34 IPC may be reduced to the
period already undergone by them.
On the other hand, the learned AAG opposed the
submissions made by the learned counsel for the accused-
petitioners and submitted that there is neither any occasion to
interfere with the sentence awarded to the accused petitioners 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-petitioners.
It is not disputed that the occurrence has taken place in the
year 2003 and the accused-petitioners have so far undergone a
period of about eleven days incarceration, out of total sentence of
one year S.I., and so also suffered the mental agony and trauma
of protracted trial. Thus, looking to the over-all circumstances and
the fact that the accused-petitioners have remained behind the
bars for considerable time, it will be just and proper if the
sentence awarded by the trial court for offence under Sections
(Downloaded on 24/07/2025 at 09:51:43 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:32504] (4 of 4) [CRLR-1230/2008]
498A & 323/34 IPC and affirmed by the appellate court is reduced
to the period already undergone by them.
Accordingly, the criminal revision petition is partly allowed.
While maintaining the petitioners’ conviction for offence under
Sections 498A & 323/34 IPC, the sentence awarded to them for
aforesaid offence is hereby reduced to the period already
undergone. The fine amount is hereby waived, if not deposited.
The petitioners are on bail. They need not surrender. their bail
bonds are discharged.
The record of the courts below be sent back forthwith.
(MANOJ KUMAR GARG),J
27-MS/-
(Downloaded on 24/07/2025 at 09:51:43 PM)
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
[ad_2]
Source link