IN THE HIGH COURT OF RAJASTHAN
Manoj Kumar Garg, J.
Abdul Rasid @ Rasid Ahmed – Petitioner
Versus
State of Rajasthan – Respondent
S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 420 of 2013
Decided On : 12-12-2023
JUDGMENT :
Manoj Kumar Garg, J.
1. 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.
2. 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.
3. 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.
4. 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.
5. 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.
6. 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.
7. 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 sentence awarded to the accused-petitioner for the offence under Section 498A IPC may be reduced to the period already undergone by him.
8. 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.
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. 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.
11. Accordingly, the criminal revision petition is partly allowed. While maintaining the petitioner's conviction and sentence for offence under Section 498A IPC, the sentence award
The court can reduce a sentence under Section 498A IPC to the time already served when considering the circumstances of the case, including compromise and duration of trial.
The court may reduce a sentence based on the time already served and the circumstances surrounding the case, even when the conviction is upheld.
The court may reduce a sentence to the period already served, considering the duration of incarceration and the circumstances surrounding the case.
The court may reduce a sentence to the time already served when considering the circumstances of the case and the mental trauma endured during protracted trials.
The court has the discretion to consider the time already undergone and the mental agony of protracted trial in reducing the sentence of the accused.
The court has the discretion to consider the time already spent by the accused-petitioner in incarceration and trial when deciding on the reduction of the sentence for the offences.
The court upheld the conviction under Section 379 IPC but reduced the sentence to the period already served, considering the time spent in custody and the circumstances of the case.
The court can reduce the sentence to the period already served, considering the time spent in custody and the mental trauma of a protracted trial.
The court has the discretion to consider the time already served and the circumstances of the case in deciding the appropriate sentence for an offence.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.