In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh Crl. Revision No. 1927 of 2007 (O&M) Date of decision : March 04, 2008 Nirmal Singh .. Petitioner versus State of Punjab and others .. Respondents Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Uma Nath Singh Hon'ble Mr. Justice A.N. Jindal Present: Mr. Kulwant Singh Dhanora, Advocate for the petitioner. A.N. Jindal, J Crl. Misc. No. 90124 of 2007 Delay days in filing the petition is condoned for the reasons recorded in the application. Crl. Revision No. 1927 of 2007 By way of the present revision petition, the complainant has sought enhancement of the sentence passed vide judgment dated 3.5.2007 by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Amritsar, against the accused before the trial court on the following terms :- Satwant Singh U/s 304-B/34 IPC : To undergo imprisonment for life. Bhupinder Singh and Paramjit Kaur U/s 304-B /34 IPC : To undergo rigorous imprisonment for ten years each. Ajit Kaur U/s 304-B/34 IPC : To undergo rigorous imprisonment for seven years. Crl. Revision No. 1927 of 2007 (O&M) -2- *** On 1.4.2004, the complainant-Nirmal Singh (hereinafter referred to as 'the complainant') a resident of Faridabad had married his daughter Rajnit Kaur @ Rajni with the accused Satwant Singh @ Lawrance. Despite adequate dowry given to the respondents at the time of marriage, the respondents were not satisfied. They placed demand for transfer of kothi and a shop in the name of Satwant Singh. Despite the inability shown by the complainant, the respondents insisted upon the same. They have been torturing and harassing his daughter. In December, 2004, Satwant Singh (husband), Bhupinder Singh (father in law), Paramjit Kaur (mother in law) and Ajit Kaur (sister in law) had given beatings to her and tried to kill her. However, they had turned her out of the house. On that day, his daughter Rajnit Kaur @ Rajni had telephoned him from the PCO and told him about the occurrence. He had telephoned Jaswinder Singh, his brother in law, who was the resident of Gurnam Nagar, Sultanwind Road, Amritsar who took her to his house. An FIR No.520 of 2004 was got lodged against the respondents. However, after 2- ½ months of lodging the said FIR, Satwant Singh and Bhupinder Singh respondents were arrested but the matter ended in compromise and the deceased was rehabilitated in her matrimonial home. On 27.6.2005, she gave birth to a female child. In July, 2005, his wife Daljeet Kaur and son Sandip Singh had gone to Amritsar to see the child along with many gifts to be given to the respondents at the birth of the child but still they showed dis-satisfaction. On 21.8.2005 Rajnit Kaur @ Rajni again complained him regarding her maltreatment at the hands of the respondents but the complainant consoled her and assured her Crl. Revision No. 1927 of 2007 (O&M) -3- *** to come for persuading the respondents as and when he gets time. On the night between 1.9.2005 and 2.9.2005, at about 12.30 O'clock, Bhupinder Singh respondent informed the complainant that they had killed Rajnit Kaur @ Rajni and he could do whatever he liked. After making full enquiries about the facts, he proceeded to the house of the respondents and found the dead body of Rajnit Kaur @ Rajni lying in the hospital. The case was registered, investigated and challan was presented. The respondents were charged, tried, convicted and sentenced accordingly. A short prayer made in the petition is that 10 years sentence as awarded to the respondents No.2 to 4 may be enhanced. Having perused the records of the case, the main accused Satwant Singh was convicted and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life under Section 304-B read with Section 34 IPC, Bhupinder Singh and Paramjit Kaur were sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 10 years and Ajit Kaur was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 7 years under Section 304-B read with Section 34 IPC. Satwant Singh @ Lawrance was awarded sentence on the higher side for the reasons that he was the main accused in the case and the remaining three accused were awarded either minimum or more than minimum of sentence as prescribed in the Code. On scanning the evidence, no such illegality or irregularity has been found or detected warranting interference by this Court on the quantum of sentence. Since the State has not filed any appeal and the appeal preferred by the accused- respondents is already pending, we do not deem it a fit case for enhancement in the matter of sentence. Crl. Revision No. 1927 of 2007 (O&M) -4- *** Consequently, finding no merits in the revision petition, the same is hereby dismissed. (Uma Nath Singh) (A.N. Jindal) Judge Judge March 04, 2008 deepak