Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2025 DIGILAW 601 (RAJ)

Ashfak Ahmed v. State of Rajasthan

2025-03-05

MANOJ KUMAR GARG

body2025
ORDER : MANOJ KUMAR GARG, J. 1.Instant revision petition has been filed by the petitioner against the order dated 24.01.2024, passed by learned Sessions Judge, Jodhpur District in Cr. Appeal No.18/2022 whereby the learned appellate court partly allowed the appeal of the accused- petitioner and while affirming the judgment of the learned Judicial Magistrate, Pipar City, District Jodhpur, dated 16.04.2022 passed in Cr. Original Case No.101/2010 to the extent of conviction for offences under Sections 498A & 323 IPC , set aside the sentence and instead gave benefit of probation and imposed a fine of Rs.60,000/-, out of which Rs.50,000/- was ordered to be given to the respondent No.2. 2. Counsel for the petitioner submits that the matter was listed before this Court on 16.02.2024 and this Court while issuing notices to the respondent No.2, granted interim order to the effect that if the appellant deposits Rs.30,000/- in compliance of the appellate order dated 24.01.2024, then the rest of the amount shall remain stayed. Counsel submits that in pursuance of the said interim order, the appellant has already deposited Rs.30,000/- before the trial court. Counsel submits that he does not challenge the finding of conviction given by the courts below, but considering the facts that the fine of Rs.60,000/- as imposed by the appellant court is too harsh and the appellant being an indigent person is unable to deposit the said fine amount and the probation period of one year has already passed, therefore, it is prayed that the fine imposed by the appellate court may be waived or in the alternatively reduced the same appropriately. 3. Learned Public Prosecutor and learned counsel for respondent No.2 have opposed the prayer made by the counsel for the petitioner. 4. I have considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties and perused the judgments of the appellate court as well as trial court and also gone through the entire record. 5. 3. Learned Public Prosecutor and learned counsel for respondent No.2 have opposed the prayer made by the counsel for the petitioner. 4. I have considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties and perused the judgments of the appellate court as well as trial court and also gone through the entire record. 5. Looking to the overall facts and circumstances of the case as well as considering the facts that the incident relates back to the year 2010 and the fine imposed by the appellate court upon the petitioner while giving benefit of probation is too harsh and the petitioner is an indigent person and is unable to pay the whole fine amount and the period of probation has already passed it will be just and proper, if the fine imposed by the appellant court is reduced from Rs.60,000/- to Rs.30,000/-. 6. Accordingly, the revision petition is partly allowed. The petitioner’s conviction for offence under Sections 498A , 323 IPC is hereby maintained and the appellate court has rightly given probation to the petitioner for the said offences. However, so far as fine imposed by the appellate court is concerned while giving the benefit of probation, the same is reduced from Rs.60,000/- to Rs.30,000/-. Since, the petitioner has already deposited the fine amount of Rs.30,000/- before the trial court, the same may be disbursed to the respondent No.2 immediately on an application being filed.