IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Criminal Revision No.757 of 1995 Date of Decision: 15.02.2008. Jaswinder Singh .......Petitioner versus Tara Singh etc. .......Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA. Present: None. *** KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA, J.(Oral) Respondent-Tara Singh was tried by the Court of Sessions Judge, Ludhiana who vide his judgment and order dated 11.02.1995 convicted him for offence under Section 302 IPC and ordered to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs.2000/-, in default of payment of fine, to further undergo for a period of three months. The present revision petition was filed by the complainant on that ground that the sentence of life imprisonment is inadequate and death should have been awarded. No appeal for enhancement was filed by the State under Section 377 of the Cr.P.C. None had appeared on 14.02.2008 and the following order was passed:- “Tara Singh respondent was convicted and sentenced to life imprisonment by the Court of learned Sessions Judge, Ludhiana, vide his judgment dated 11.02.1995. The present revision petition was filed for enhancement of sentence that instead of life imprisonment death penalty should have been awarded. Criminal Revision No.757 of 1995 --2-- Office is directed to inform this Court regarding the status of appeal filed by Tara Singh accused, who is respondent here and the decision taken by the Hon'ble Division Bench on the criminal appeal, so preferred. List again on 15.2.2008”. Office has reported that respondent-Tara Singh had not filed any appeal in this Court. The convict respondent-Tara Singh in the last 13 years may have undergone substantial portion of his sentence. Occurrence has taken place on 01.07.1991. 17 years of the occurrence and substantial portion of substantive sentence having been undergone by the respondent in itself is a mitigating circumstance. Therefore, the prayer in the revision petition after 17 years of occurrence that the death sentence should be awarded, cannot be entertained. On the last many dates, none is appearing on behalf of the petitioner which in itself is sufficient to show that the complainant has lost interest to pursue the present complaint. Hence, the revision petition is dismissed being devoid of any merits. February 15, 2008 (KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA) seema JUDGE