IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Crl. Revision No.2815 of 2011 DATE OF DECISION: December 12, 2011 Sudesh Kumar & another .....Petitioners VERSUS State of Punjab ....Respondent CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RANJIT SINGH 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgement? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? PRESENT: Mr. Daldeep Singh Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Gaurav Garg Dhuriwala, DAG, Punjab, for the State. **** RANJIT SINGH, J. This revision is filed by Sudesh Kumar and Banso, who are husband and mother-in-law of the complainant respectively. Both the petitioners stand convicted for offences under Sections 498- A/406/506 IPC and have been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of two years respectively for conviction under Sections 498-A/406 IPC. They have also been imposed a fine of `5000/- and in default of payment of fine, they are further required to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two months in each. The appellate court as well as the trial Court had considered the nature of evidence and has acquitted two sisters-in law, but convicted the petitioners as well as the father-in-law of the Crl. Revision No.2815 of 2011 -2- complainant. The father-in-law, who was convicted had died during the pendency of the appeal and thus, the present petition has been filed only on behalf of the husband and mother-in-law. The conviction is well supported by the evidence on record. However, there is some substance in the submission made by the counsel for the petitioners that the sentence as imposed is maximum and is too harsh. As per the counsel, the mother-in-law is 70 years old and this aspect has also not been taken into account while equating her with her young son for the purpose of awarding sentence. As per the counsel, the acquittal of some of the accused by the Court would show that effort was made to rope in entire members of the family and as such the allegation made by her may have to be scrutinized minutely for testing the quantum of sentence. Considering the nature and gravity of the allegation and the age of petitioner No.2-Banso, sentence imposed on her is reduced to period of three months. Petitioner No.1-husband is young and may not deserve that leniency as is shown to his mother-Banso. Sentence of two years is reduced to period of one year rigorous imprisonment. The revision petition otherwise shall stand dismissed. December 12, 2011 ( RANJIT SINGH ) monika JUDGE