Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2011 DIGILAW 1470 (RAJ)

Hanuman Sahaya v. State of Rajasthan

2011-07-25

NARENDRA KUMAR JAIN

body2011
JUDGMENT 1. - Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. Although matter has come up for orders on application for suspension of sentence of the petitioner, but at the request of learned counsel for the parties, the arguments were heard and the revision petition is being disposed off finally. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that trial court as well as appellate court both have concurrently recorded a finding that the petitioner is guilty of offences under Sections 498-A and 406 IPC and there is no illegality in the findings of both the courts below, therefore, he does not challenge the order of conviction of the petitioner passed by the trial court and affirmed by appellate court, but in view of the fact that the parties have entered into a compromise in matrimonial dispute and a consent petition was filed and a decree of divorce was passed on the basis of compromise, therefore, sentence of simple imprisonment of one year, awarded by the trial court for each offence, i.e. under Sections 406 and 498-A IPC, may be reduced to a period of three months' simple imprisonment in both the offences. 4. Learned Public Prosecutor, in view of the fact the petitioner is not challenging the order of his conviction, does not oppose the prayer of learned counsel for the petitioner seriously. 5. Brief facts of the case are that a report, Exhibit P-1 was lodged by P.W. 4, Badrinarain at Police Station Mahila Thana, Gandhi Nagar, Jaipur and on that basis, F.I.R. No. 49/2004 was registered on 22.04.2004 under Sections 498-A and 406 IPC. It was alleged in the report, Exhibit P-1 by P.W. 4, Badrinarain that marriage of his daughter Sunita was performed on 05.03.2003 with Hanuman Sahaya and after three months of the marriage, Hanuman Sahaya started demanding dowry of Rs. 25,000/- from his daughter Sunita. It was also stated that Hanuman Sahaya also started beating Sunita. Allegations were also levelled against other family members. After completion of investigation, Investigating Officer, P.W. 7, Smt. Rajkumari Vyas filed a charge sheet under Sections 498-A, 406 IPC against the petitioner as well as co-accused-persons namely Smt. Meera Devi, Ramesh and Smt. Janki Devi on 28.09.2004. 6. Learned trial court framed charges against accused persons for the offences under Sections 498-A and 406 IPC. Accused persons denied the charges and claimed trial. 6. Learned trial court framed charges against accused persons for the offences under Sections 498-A and 406 IPC. Accused persons denied the charges and claimed trial. The prosecution, in support of its case, examined P.W. 1 to P.W. 8 and also produced documentary evidence Exhibit P1 to Exhibit P8. Thereafter, statements of accused persons were recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. In defence, Exhibit D1 to Exhibit D3 were filed. Exhibit D-2 is the consent petition filed by the parties for grant of divorce before Family Court No. 1, Jaipur and Exhibit D-3 is certified copy of judgment dated 13.07.2009 passed by Family Court No. 1, Jaipur, on the basis of compromise. Learned trial Court, after considering submissions of learned counsel for the parties and examining the record of the case, convicted and sentenced the accused-petitioner under Section 498-A IPC to one year's simple imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 5,000/-, in default of payment of fine to further undergo one month's simple imprisonment and under Section 406 IPC to one year's simple imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 5,000/-, in default of payment of fine to further undergo one month's simple imprisonment. It was directed that out of total amount of fine Rs. 10,000/-, a sum of Rs. 9,000/- will be paid to the complainant towards compensation. Both the sentences were ordered to run concurrently. So far as other accused-persons are concerned, they were acquitted of the offence under Sections 498-A and 406 IPC. 7. Being aggrieved with the order of conviction and sentence passed by trial court, the petitioner preferred an appeal, but the same was dismissed by Additional Sessions Judge(Fast Track) No. 3, Jaipur City, Jaipur vide judgment and order dated 25.04.2011. Since the petitioner was not present at the time of pronouncement of judgment, therefore, it was directed that the petitioner be summoned and he be sent to jail to receive the sentence of imprisonment. In pursuance of arrest warrant, the petitioner was arrested on 14.06.2011 and since then, he is in custody. 8. Since the petitioner was not present at the time of pronouncement of judgment, therefore, it was directed that the petitioner be summoned and he be sent to jail to receive the sentence of imprisonment. In pursuance of arrest warrant, the petitioner was arrested on 14.06.2011 and since then, he is in custody. 8. Since learned counsel for the petitioner has not challenged the order of conviction of the petitioner, therefore, it is not necessary to refer and discuss the facts and evidence of the present case in detail, but after considering statements of prosecution witnesses, particularly statements of P.W. 1 Sunita and P.W. 4 Badrinarain, I am of the view that learned counsel for the petitioner was right in not challenging the order of conviction of the petitioner in both the offences passed by trial court and affirmed by appellate court. I do not find any illegality or perversity in the findings of conviction of both the courts below, so as to interfere with the same. 9. So far as reduction of sentence of imprisonment of the petitioner under Sections 498-A and 406 IPC is concerned, it is clear from the record that P.W. 1, Sunita and petitioner both filed a consent petition for grant of divorce before Family Court No. 1, Jaipur and a copy of the same was placed on record, as Exhibit D-2 and on the said consent petition, Family Court No. 1, Jaipur vide judgment dated 13.07.2009 passed a decree of divorce, on the basis of compromise arrived at between the parties, a copy of which was also placed on record in the present case, as Exhibit D-3. Since, both the parties settled the matter and filed a joint petition for grant of divorce on the basis of mutual consent, therefore, as a special case, I find this case to be fit one to reduce the sentence of imprisonment of the petitioner. 10. After considering all the facts and circumstances of the case and for the reasons mentioned above, I am of the view that ends of justice will meet, in case the sentence of simple imprisonment of one year in each offence under Sections 498-A and 406 IPC, awarded by the trial court to the petitioner, is reduced to a period of three months' simple imprisonment for each offence. 11. Consequently, revision petition is partly allowed. 11. Consequently, revision petition is partly allowed. Order of conviction of the petitioner passed by the trial court and affirmed by appellate court is upheld. However, sentence of imprisonment of the petitioner and fine in both the offences, i.e. under Sections 498-A and 406 IPC, is reduced to a period of three months' simple imprisonment with fine of Rs. 1,000/- in each offence. In default of payment of fine, the petitioner will further undergo ten days' simple imprisonment. Both the sentences shall run concurrently, as already ordered by the trial court. 12. In view of above, there is no need to pass any order on the application for suspension of sentence and the same also stands disposed off.Revision partly allowed. *******