Sabuddin and Ors. Vs State

As per the status report dated 31.03.2025 submitted by learned Deputy Government Advocate, the petitioner No.2-Nannu has already expired. Accordingly, the criminal revision petition is dismissed being abated to the extent of the petitioner No.2.

¶16

The instant criminal revision petition has been filed by the petitioners challenging the judgment dated 07.02.2006 passed by learned Special Judge, Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Cases and Additional Sessions Judge, Sawai Madhopur (hereinafter referred to as learned 'Appellate Court') in Criminal Appeal No.4/2005. Vide the impugned

¶17

[2025:RJ-JP:24309]

¶18

[CRLR-173/2006]

¶19

(2 of 5)

¶20

judgment dated 07.02.2006 passed by learned Appellate Court, the appeal to the extent of petitioner No.1-Sabuddin was dismissed and his conviction as well as sentence was upheld whereas, the appeal to the extent of petitioner No.2-Nannu was partly allowed. Vide the impugned judgment dated 29.09.2005 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate I Class, Sawai Madhopur (hereinafter referred to as learned 'trial Court') in Criminal Case No.174/2000, the petitioners were convicted and sentenced for the offences punishable under Section 498-A of IPC.

¶21

As per brief facts of the case, complainant-Smt. Vilkesh who is wife of the present petitioner No.1-Sabuddin, lodged a complaint against the present petitioners and her other in-laws before learned Civil Judge (Junior Division) and Judicial Magistrate, Sawai Madhopur for the offences punishable under Sections 498-A, 406, 323 and 504 of IPC. The said complaint was sent for investigation, whereas a Criminal Case No.174/2000 was registered before learned trial Court and after investigation, the charge-sheet against the present petitioners for the offence punishable under Section 498-A of IPC was filed before learned trial Court. Charges against the petitioners were framed and read over to them. The petitioners denied the charges and opted for trial. During trial, as many as seven witnesses were examined by the prosecution and seven documents were exhibited before learned trial Court.

¶22

The petitioners were examined under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. and they did not produce any witness in their defence. Thus, as per the impugned judgment dated 29.09.2005, learned trial Court

[2025:RJ-JP:24309]

[CRLR-173/2006]

(3 of 5)

convicted and sentenced the petitioners for the offence punishable as aforesaid.

¶27

Feeling aggrieved of the impugned judgment dated 29.09.2005 passed by learned trial Court, the petitioners preferred an Appeal No.4/2005 before learned Appellate Court. Vide the impugned judgment dated 07.02.2006 passed by learned Appellate Court, the appeal to the extent of petitioner No.1Sabuddin was dismissed and his conviction as well as sentence was upheld. Hence, the present criminal revision petition was filed.

¶28

At the threshold, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner does not want to challenge the finding of conviction for the aforesaid offence against the petitioner.

¶29

However, as the case in hand relates to an incident occurred in the year 2000; both the petitioners were convicted and sentenced vide the impugned judgment dated 29.09.2005 passed by learned trial Court; the appeal to the extent of petitioner No.1Sabuddin was dismissed; the present petitioner No.1 has remained in custody for more than 40 days; no other criminal case has been registered against the present petitioner; and the present petitioner suffered the agony of trial, appeal and this petition, for more than 25 years, therefore, learned counsel submitted that considering the overall facts and circumstances of the case and considering the length of period of trial, appeal and this petition, a liberal view be taken for the petitioner and the sentence awarded to the petitioner No.1 as aforesaid may be

(4 of 5)

[2025:RJ-JP:24309]

[CRLR-173/2006]

reduced and may be modified to the extent of sentence of imprisonment already undergone by him.

¶34

Per contra , learned Deputy Government Advocate appearing on behalf of the respondent-State opposed the prayer made on behalf of the petitioner. 9. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 10. It is an undisputed fact that the occurrence of this case relates to the year 2000; age of the present petitioner is about 60 years; the petitioner was awarded the sentence of one year simple imprisonment out of which he has undergone the sentence of about 40 days; the petitioner has suffered the agony and trauma of trial and appeal and the present petition is pending since 2006. 11. In view of the aforesaid discussions and the fact that the petitioner has served the sentence of about 40 days, the prayer made on behalf of the petitioner is accepted and the present petition is partly allowed. While maintaining the conviction of the petitioner for the offences punishable under Section 498-A of IPC, the sentence awarded against him is ordered to be reduced and modified to the extent of sentence already undergone by him. However, the amount of fine is hereby maintained.

¶35

It is ordered that the amount of fine i.e. Rs.1,000/- shall be deposited by petitioner before learned trial Court within a period of three months from passing of this order. It is also directed that in default of payment of fine by the petitioner, he shall undergo further simple imprisonment of three months.

[2025:RJ-JP:24309]

[CRLR-173/2006]

(5 of 5)