IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Criminal Revision No.2368 of 2006 Date of decision : 19.1.2007. Chotey Lal ... Petitioner versus State of Haryana and others ... Respondents Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Uma Nath Singh Hon'ble Mr. Justice A.N. Jindal. Present: Ms. Meenakshi Dogra, Advocate for the petitioner. Uma Nath Singh, J.(Oral) This revision for enhancement of sentence arises out of the judgment dated 28.8.2006 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Gurgaon in Sessions Case No.37 of 14.3.2001 awarding the sentence of imprisonment for life under Section 302/34 IPC. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that though the learned trial Court has recorded the observation that the accused do not deserve leniency in the matter of sentence but still they have only been awarded the sentence of imprisonment for life. According to the learned counsel this is a broad day light murder of a life convict who was just released from the jail after serving the sentence. We have carefully examined the submissions and find no reason to interfere with the impugned order of sentence. The observation of the trial Court appears to be a little out of place as the minimum sentence prescribed under Section 302 IPC is RI for life. Moreover, during the course of hearing on sentence, the accused have given explanations which have been considered before passing the order of sentence. That apart, the manner of commission of offence as disclosed from evidence does not indicate that the offence would fall in the category of the rarest of rare cases. Similarly, the circumstances of the case are not such as to award compensation in the murder case, particularly when the deceased was a life convict. Criminal Revision No.2368 of 2006 [2] Under these circumstances, we do not find any merit in the revision and hence it is dismissed. (Uma Nath Singh) Judge 19.1.2007. (A. N. Jindal) “deepak” Judge