Criminal Appeal No. 1050-SB of 1998 -1- **** IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 1. Criminal Appeal No. 1050-SB of 1998 Date of decision : 04.11.2008 Nihalo Bai .....Appellant Versus State of Haryana ...Respondent 2. Criminal Appeal No. 1057-SB of 1998 Joginder Singh and another .....Appellants Versus State of Haryana ...Respondent CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. D. ANAND Present: Mr. Sandeep Chopra, Advocate as Amicus Curiae for the appellants in the both the appeals. Mr. Jagdish Manchanda, Advocate for the appellants in both the appeals. Mr. S.S.Mor, Senior Deputy Advocate General, Haryana. Mr. Sudhir Sharma, Advocate for the complainant. S. D. ANAND, J. These two appeals (appeal No.1050-SB of 1998 filed by Nihalo Bai and appeal No.1057-SB of 1998 filed by Joginder Singh and Kuldeep Singh) are directed against the judgment dated 7.12.1998 vide which the appellants were convicted by the learned Trial Judge for offences under Sections 304-B and 201 IPC on a charge of having caused dowry death of the deceased Goga Devi wife of appellant Kuldeep Singh who died during the pendency of the appeal. They were further convicted Criminal Appeal No. 1050-SB of 1998 -2- **** on a charge under Section 201 IPC. Mst. Krishna, yet another accused tried alongwith them, was acquitted of the charge. Learned counsel for the appellants has placed on record death certificate in support of the averment that appellant Kuldeep Singh is dead. The appeal filed by Kuldeep Singh shall stand dismissed as abated. I have heard Mr. Sandeep Chopra, learned counsel as Amicus Curiae, Mr. Jagdish Manchanda, learned counsel for the appellants, Mr. S.S.Mor, Senior Deputy Advocate General, Haryana for the respondent and Mr. Sudhir Sharma, Advocate for the complainant. After addressing arguments for a short while, learned Amicus Curiae and the learned original counsel for the appellants state that they are not in a position to press the appeals on merits in view of the fact that there is overwhelming evidence available on record to prove the charge for which the appellants stand convicted. The prosecution presentation was otherwise buttressed at the trial by the testimony of PW-1 H.C.Rambir PW-2 constable Raj Singh, PW- 3 Gurdas Singh, PW-4 Satnam Singh and PW-5 Inspector Ram Kishan, all of whom lent unflinching support to the prosecution version at the trial. In the light thereof and also in the light of the fact that the learned counsel for the appellants do not wish contest the appeals on merits, it is ordered that appeals shall stand dismissed. However, there are certain circumstances available on the record on account of which dilution on point of sentence is required to be ordered. At the time the statements under Section 313 Cr.P.C. were recorded, appellant Joginder Singh and Nihalo Bai gave their ages 77 years and 72 years respectively. The Trial Court judgment was pronounced on 7.12.1998. In that view of things, appellant Joginder Singh is presently aged as 87 years, while appellant Criminal Appeal No. 1050-SB of 1998 -3- **** Nihalo Bai is presently aged 82 years. Apart therefrom, these two appellants lost their son i.e. Kuldeep Singh during the pendency of the appeal. The nature has, thus, independently punished them for their misdeeds. In view of the advanced age of the appellants (Joginder Singh and Nihalo Bai) and also the fact they lost their son during the pendency of the appeal, it is deemed appropriate to reduce their sentence to the period already undergone by them and is so ordered accordingly. Except with that modification, the appeal shall stand dismissed. November 04, 2008 (S.D. ANAND) Pka JUDGE