IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA Criminal Revision No. 152 of 2003 Date of Decision: 25.05.2010 __________________________________________________________ Gangi Devi ….Petitioner. Versus State of Himachal Pradesh. ….Respondent. ___________________________________________________________ Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Dev Darshan Sud, J. Whether approved for reporting?1 No __________________________________________________________ For the Petitioner: Ms. Nidhi Chawala, Advocate. For the Respondent: Ms. Ruma Kaushik, Additional Advocate General, with Mr. R.P. Singh, Assistant Advocate General. __________________________________________________________ Dev Darshan Sud, J. (Oral) This revision petition is filed by the petitioner against the judgment and sentence of the learned Sessions Judge, Hamirpur affirming the judgment and sentence of the learned Trial Court convicting the petitioner and her son (Sh. Balak Ram, who is since dead) to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year each and fine of Rs. 3,000/- each under Sections 498-A read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. 2. Brief facts of the case are that the accused was charged for committing offence as noticed above. The allegation was that she and her son 1 Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes 2 were harassing the deceased Smt. Sureshna Kumari W/o deceased Balak Ram. On the evidence on record, the learned Trial Court convicted both the petitioner and her son to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year each. While passing the judgment on the quantum of sentence, the Court noticed that Balak Ram was 30 years of age and had three children. The petitioner was 57 years of age. In these circumstances, it took a lenient view. Sentence was pronounced on 5th February, 2001. Both the accused preferred an appeal in the Court of learned Sessions Judge, Hamirpur. The learned appellate Court considering the entirety of the evidence on record, affirmed the findings of fact of the learned Trial Court holding that the petitioner and her son was guilty of offences as charged. Balak Ram is since dead. 3. It is undisputed before me that before the institution of the case against her and subsequent thereto, the petitioner, who is now aged about 68 years, has served some time in prison. On appreciation of facts, I can not persuade myself to take a different view from the one, which has been taken by the learned Trial Court. On the question of sentence, this Court finds itself in a difficult position. Considering that the offence for which the petitioner charged was committed way back in the year, 1996 and the petitioner has faced the ordeal of trial, imprisonment for a period of eighteen days and that now she is about 68 years of age and also saddled with the tragedy of losing her son, who was also an accused in the case. In these circumstances, I would not deem it proper to re- affirm the sentence and order her to serve out the remaining sentence in jail. It would be in the interest of justice in case the sentence imposed by the learned Trial Court as affirmed by the learned Sessions Judge is modified to the extent that the sentence of fine shall remain intact and the sentence of imprisonment is reduced to the period, which she has already undergone. This order has been 3 passed taking into consideration the special facts and circumstances of this case and will not be construed as a precedent in other cases. 4. Learned Additional Advocate General submits that offence under Section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code is a heinous crime and no leniency should be shown. I do not find in the present case any circumstances brought on record to show that the petitioner had a savage propensity towards commission of crime. This revision petition is accordingly disposed of. Bail bonds furnished by the petitioner shall stand discharged. May 25, 2010 (Dev Darshan Sud), (KRS) Judge