[2025:RJ-JP:21353] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 1156/2006 1. Ashok Kumar S/o Uttam Chand 2. Satish S/o Uttam Chand Both at present in District Jail, Alwar 3. Uttam Chand S/o Kalyandas R/o Palankheda Police Station Govindgarh District Alwar ----Petitioners Versus State of Rajasthan through PP ----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Mr. HareNdra Singh with Mr. Shivam Sharma, Mr. Mohan lal For Respondent(s) : Mr. Jaiprakash Tiwari, PP HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRAMIL KUMAR MATHUR JUDGMENT RESERVED ON :: 16/04/2025 JUDGMENT PRONOUNCED ON :: 23/05/2025 1. The petitioners have preferred this revision petition against the judgment dated 29.6.2002 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Laxmangarh Distt. Alwar in Criminal Case No. 37/1997 whereby they have been convicted and sentenced as under:- Under Section 498A of IPC:- one year Imprisonment alongwith fine of Rs.200/- and in default of payment of fine, further one month additional simple imprisonment Under Section 406 IPC:- one year imprisonment with fine of Rs. 200/- and in default of payment of fine, further one month additional simple imprisonment Under Section 323 IPC:- One month simple imprisonment and Rs. 100/- as fine and in default of fine, further seven days additional simple imprisonment. [2025:RJ-JP:21353] (2 of 4) [CRLR-1156/2006] 2. Challenging the judgment of conviction and sentence, the petitioner preferred an appeal before learned Sessions Judge, Laxmangarh District Alwar in Criminal Appeal No.22/2002, which was partly allowed on 29.6.2002 and the appellate court acquitted all the petitioners for offence under Section 406 IPC and while upholding conviction under Section 498A and 323 IPC granted benefit of probation to petitioner Uttam Chand only and upheld the sentence part also in respect of petitioners Ashok Kumar and Satish. 3. Aggrieved with both the judgments, the petitioners have filed the present revision petition. 4. The brief facts giving rise to this case are that complainant Ashok Kumar has filed a complaint at Police Station Laxmangarh stating therein that his elder sister Pushpa’s marriage was selomnized with Ashok S/o Uttam Chand about 18 years ago but just after marriage, Ashok and his family members started to abuse his sister for insufficient dowry and started cruelty against her mentally and physically. 5. After due investigation charge-sheet was filed against petitioners before the competent court. The concerned court of Judicial Magistrate, Laxmangarh Distt. Alwar after considering the evidence adduced by the parties convicted and sentenced the petitioners as mentioned above and the appeal filed by the petitioners was partly allowed by learned appellate court hence this revision petition. 6. Heard the rival contentions of learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. [2025:RJ-JP:21353] (3 of 4) [CRLR-1156/2006] 7. During the pendency of this revision petition, petitioner No. 3 Uttam Chand died, therefore, on 19.3.2025 proceedings against him were dropped. 8. At the outset, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that he does not challenge the conviction of the petitioners and confined his arguments qua the quantum of sentence only. Learned counsel for the petitioners however makes a limited prayer that the petitioners have remained in custody for one month 18 days, therefore, they may be granted benefit of probation under Probation of Offenders Act, 1958. 9. Per contra, the learned Public Prosecutor opposed the submissions and stated that in the backdrop of the overall facts and circumstances of the case and well reasoned order passed by both the courts below, the petitioners are not entitled for any indulgence by this Court. 10. I have given my earnest consideration to the rival contentions of the parties and scanned the matter carefully. 11. On perusal of the judgments of both the courts below, this Court is of the considered view that the trial court has rightly appreciated the evidence on record while holding the petitioners guilty of offence. The appellate court has rightly partly allowed the appeal. Therefore, there is no illegality or perversity in the findings given by both the courts below which warrants any interference by this Court by invoking the revisional jurisdiction. 12. Even otherwise, learned counsel for the petitioners has not assailed the judgments of conviction and has restricted his [2025:RJ-JP:21353] (4 of 4) [CRLR-1156/2006] arguments qua the quantum of sentence only. The conviction of petitioners is therefore affirmed. 13. In the light of limited prayer made on behalf of the petitioner, the present petition is partly allowed while maintaining the conviction of the present petitioners as recorded by the learned courts below for the offence under Sections 498A and 323 IPC in the impugned judgments, this Court interferes only with the sentence part of the said judgments and considering the protracted trial and no criminal antecedent exists against the petitioners, direct that the petitioners shall be released on probation under Section 4 of the Act of 1958 upon their furnishing a personal bond of Rs.50,000/- with two sureties in the sum of Rs.25,000/- each to the satisfaction of the trial court with further undertaking that they shall maintains peace and good behavior for a period of two years and shall not repeat the offence. The petitioners are on bail, they need not surrender. Their bail bonds stands discharged accordingly. 14. All pending applications stands disposed of. Record of the courts below be sent back forthwith. (PRAMIL KUMAR MATHUR),J BRIJ MOHAN GANDHI 77/17