Criminal Appeal No.765-SB of 1997 1 In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana, Chandigarh. Criminal Appeal No.765-SB of 1997 Date of Decision: 27.2.2008. Ranjit Singh and Others …Petitioners Versus State of Punjab …Respondent CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA Present: Mr. P.S.Hundal, Senior Advocate with Mr. R.S.Sidhu, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. Amit Chaudhary, Assistant Advocate General, Punjab, for the State. Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia, J. (Oral) Ranjit Singh, Pardip Singh and Surinder Kaur were tried in case FIR No. 106 dated 27.9.1995 registered at Police Station Sarhali under Section 304-B IPC. (The learned trial Court acquitted the accused for offence under Section 304-B IPC, but convicted under Section 498-A IPC). Jaswant Kaur alias Jaspreet Kaur was married on 4.12.1994 according to Sikh rites with Ranjit Singh appellant. Pardip Singh is father and Surinder Kaur is mother of Ranjit Singh, husband of Jaswant Kaur alias Jaspreet Kaur. It is stated that due to the harassment Jaswant Criminal Appeal No.765-SB of 1997 2 Kaur had died unnatural death. Sometime before 27.9.1995, it was stated that Scooter was being demanded. It was also stated that Jaspreet Kaur had died due to poison. Viscera of deceased Jaswant Kaur was sent to Chemical Examiner who detected aluminium Phosphide. Petitioners were tried for an offence under Section 304-B IPC. Learned trial Court acquitted them for an offence under Section 304-B IPC but convicted them for an offence under Section 498-A IPC. The learned trial Court after convicting appellants under Section 498-A IPC sentenced them to three years rigorous imprisonment, fine of Rs.1,000/-. In default of payment of fine, to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months. Mr. P.S.Hundal, learned senior counsel who is assisted by Mr. R.S.Sidhu, Advocate, has been instructed by Mr. Sidhu to say that no appeal against acquittal of the appellants under Section 304-B IPC or no revision has been filed by the complainant Therefore, acquittal of the appellants for an offence under Section 304-B IPC has attained finality. A perusal of the judgement reveals that the conviction of petitioners for an offence under Section 498-A IPC cannot be challenged. A young lady within ten months of marriage had died within the four walls of her in-laws. Mr. Hundal at this stage has stated that he will not be assailing the conviction of petitioners but praying that since the occurrence pertains to year 1995 a period of 13 years has lapsed and petitioners have suffered a protracted trial, therefore, he prays that sentence of petitioners should be reduced. It has been stated before me that in the head note of the judgement of trial Court, age of Pardip Singh is Criminal Appeal No.765-SB of 1997 3 recorded as 67 years and now he is 80 years old and age of Surinder Kaur is recorded as 55 years and she is now 65 years old. Protracted trial is a one circumstance which weigh in favour of the petitioners for reduction of sentence. Old age of two petitioners Pardip Singh and Surinder Kaur is also to be taken into consideration. Taking the totality of circumstances into account, sentence of Ranjit Singh is reduced from three years to two years and sentence of Pardip Singh and Surinder Kaur is reduced from three years to one & half years. However, sentence of fine is enhanced from Rs.1,000/- to Rs.10,000/- qua each accused, which shall be deposited within three months. If in case the fine is not paid within three months, the present appeal shall be deemed to have been dismissed and no benefit of reduction of sentence shall accrue to the petitioners. With these modifications, the present revision petition is disposed off. (Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia) Judge February 27, 2008 “DK”