Partly allowed

Punma Ram and Ors. v. State

Rajasthan HC15 May 2024CRLR/144/2004

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a revision challenging conviction and sentence for Section 498A IPC, the High Court dismissed the petition regarding two deceased petitioners. For the surviving petitioner who had undergone fifteen days of incarceration, the Court reduced the sentence to the period already served and waived the fine.

What did the court decide?

Sentence reduced to period already undergone; fine waived; petitioner on bail; bail bonds discharged.

Punma Ram and Ors. Vs State — Domestic Violence | Rajasthan HC (2024)

¶1

[2024:RJ-JD:22075]

¶2

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR

¶3

S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 144/2004

¶4

Punma Ram S/o Himta Ram

¶5

Smt. Saro W/o Punma Ram

¶6

Thakra Ram S/o Punma Ram

¶7

All B/c Kumhar, R/o Rawatsar, District Barmer. (In judicial custody at District Jail, Barmer)

----Petitioners

Versus

State of Rajasthan

----Respondent

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Pradeep Choudhary For Respondent(s) : Mr. Mukesh Trivedi, PP

¶13

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJ KUMAR GARG Judgment

¶14

15/05/2024

¶15

Instant revision petition under Section 397/401 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the petitioners challenging the judgment dated 10.03.2004 passed by learned Addl. District & Sessions Judge, Barmer in Criminal Appeal No.48/2000 by which the appellate court dismissed the appeal of the petitioners and upheld the judgment dated 15.09.2000 passed by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Barmer in Cr. Case No.92/1998, whereby, the learned trial court convicted the petitioners for offence under Section 498A IPC and sentenced each of them to undergo six months’ RI along with a fine of Rs.500/- each and in default of payment of fine, to further undergo one month S.I.

¶16

Brief facts of the case are that on 10.08.1994, complainant Pappuri submitted a written report at PS Sadar, Barmer to the effect

[2024:RJ-JD:22075]

[CRLR-144/2004]

(2 of 4)

that two years ago, her marriage was solemnized with accused Thakra. After passing of some time after marriage, the accusedpetitioners started harassing the complainant for bringing less dowry and also gave beatings to her. On the basis of the said report, Police registered the case against the accused-petitioners and started investigation.

¶21

On completion of investigation, the police filed challan against the accused-petitioners for offence under Section 498A IPC. Thereafter, the trial court framed the charge against the accusedpetitioners, who denied the charge and claimed trial.

¶22

During the course of trial, the prosecution examined ten witnesses. Thereafter, statements of the accused-petitioners were recorded under section 313 Cr.P.C.

¶23

Upon conclusion of the trial, the learned trial court vide impugned judgment dated 15.09.2000 convicted and sentenced the accused-petitioners for offence under Section 498A of IPC.

¶24

Aggrieved by their conviction and sentence, the petitioners preferred an appeal before the learned appellate court, which came to be dismissed vide judgment dated 10.03.2004. Hence this revision petition.

¶25

Counsel for the petitioners submits that during the pending of the revision, petitioners No.1 & 2 have expired. Copies of their death certificates have also been filed and the same are taken on record.

¶26

Hence, the revision petition qua petitioners No.1 & 2, namely Punma Ram and Smt. Saro, is hereby dismissed as abated.

¶27

So far as petitioner No.3 Thakra Ram is concerned, counsel at the threshold, does not challenge the finding of conviction but it is submitted that the occurrence relates back to year 1994 and the

[2024:RJ-JD:22075]

[CRLR-144/2004]

(3 of 4)

petitioner No.3 has so far suffered a sentence of about fifteen days, out of total sentence of six months’ R.I. In such circumstances, it is prayed that the substantive sentence awarded to the accusedpetitioner No.3 for the offence under Section 498A IPC may be reduced to the period already undergone by him.

¶32

On the other hand, the learned Public Prosecutor opposed the submissions made by the learned counsel for the accusedpetitioners. The learned PP 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.

¶33

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.

¶34

It is not disputed that the occurrence has taken place in the year 1994 and the accused-petitioner No.3 has so far undergone a period of about fifteen days incarceration, out of total sentence of six months’ R.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-petitioner No.3 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.

¶35

Accordingly, the criminal revision petition is partly allowed. While maintaining the conviction of petitioner No.3 for offence under Section 498A IPC, the sentence awarded to him for aforesaid offence is hereby reduced to the period already undergone. The amount of

(4 of 4)

[2024:RJ-JD:22075]

[CRLR-144/2004]

fine is hereby waived. The petitioner No.3 is on bail. He need not surrender. His bail bonds are discharged.

¶40

The record of the courts below be sent back forthwith.

¶41

(MANOJ KUMAR GARG),J

¶42

116-MS/-

Punma Ram and Ors. v. State

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Punma Ram and Ors. v. State

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Tarsem Vs State

Ramswaroop Vs State of Rajasthan

Durgesh Soni Vs State of Rajasthan

Babu Singh Vs State of Rajasthan

State Vs Shiv Kumar and Ors.

Manchha Ram Vs Pukhraj and Anr.