1. Instant revision petition has been filed by the petitioner challenging the judgment dated 06.07.2006 passed in Cr. Appeal No.44/2006 by learned Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track), Rajsamand (hereinafter referred to as ‘the appellate court’) by which the appellate court dismissed the petitioner’s appeal and upheld the judgment dated 17.01.2006 passed in Regular Criminal Case No.20/2003 by learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Rajsamand (hereinafter referred to as ‘the trial court’) whereby, the learned trial court convicted the present petitioner for offence under Section 498-A IPC and sentenced him to undergo 6 months’ S.I. and imposed a fine of Rs.1,000/- and in default of payment of fine, to further undergo one month’s S.I.

2. Brief facts of the case are that on 02.01.2003, the complainant – Manju filed an FIR at Police Station Rajnagar to the extent that she got married with the petitioner on 28.02.2002 and after marriage the petitioner and her in-laws started torturing and harassing complainant for dowry. Thereafter, the complainant was kicked out of her marital house and her husband threatened her that he will get marry to some other woman. Upon the aforesaid information, an FIR was registered and after usual investigation, charge-sheet came to be submitted against the petitioner in the Court concerned.

3. On completion of investigation, the Police filed challan before the concerned court. Thereafter, the trial court framed the charges for offence under Sections 494, 498-A & 406 of IPC against the petitioner who pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.

4. During the course of trial, the prosecution examined as many as 10 witnesses in support of its case and exhibited certain documents. Thereafter, statements of the accused-petitioner under section 313 Cr.P.C were recorded. In defence, two witnesses were examined.

5. Upon conclusion of the trial, the learned trial court vide impugned judgment dated 17.01.2006 convicted and sentenced the accused-petitioner for aforesaid offence.

6. Being aggrieved by the conviction and sentence, the petitioners preferred an appeal before the learned appellate court, which came to be dismissed vide judgment dated 06.07.2006. Hence, this revision petition against the conviction and sentence of the accused-petitioner.

7. At the threshold, learned counsel for the accused-petitioner submits that he does not challenge the finding of conviction but since the occurrence is related to the year 2003 and out of total sentence of six months’ S.I., the accused petitioner has already served about one month of imprisonment, therefore, it is prayed that the sentence awarded to the petitioner for the aforesaid offence may be reduced to the period already undergone by him.

8. On the other hand, learned Public Prosecutor opposed the submissions made by the learned counsel for the accused- petitioner and 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. Undisputedly, the incident relates back to the year 2003 and the petitioner has so far undergone a period of about one month in custody out of six months of total sentence, so also suffered the agony and trauma of protracted trial. Thus, looking to the over-all circumstances and the fact that the petitioner has remained behind the bars for some time, it will be just and proper, if the sentence awarded by the trial court for offence under Section 498- A of IPC and affirmed by the appellate court is reduced to the period already undergone by the petitioner.

11. Accordingly, the revision petition is partly allowed. While maintaining the petitioner’s conviction for offence under Section 498-A of IPC, the sentence awarded to him for the aforesaid offence is hereby reduced to the period already undergone. The fine amount is hereby maintained. The amount of fine imposed by the trial Court, if not already deposited by the petitioner, then two months’ time is hereby granted to deposit the fine amount before the trial Court. In default of payment of fine, the petitioner shall undergo one month’s S.I.

12. The petitioner is on bail. He need not surrender. His bail bonds are discharged.

13. Pending applications, if any, shall stand disposed of.

14. The record courts below be sent back forthwith.