Crl. Revision No.983 of 2011 (O & M) - 1 - IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Crl. Revision No.983 of 2011 (O & M) Date of Decision: 20.07.2011. Smt. Roshni ……Petitioner Versus State of Haryana …...Respondent Coram: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE L. N. MITTAL. Present: Mr. Bijender Dhankar, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. S. S. Nara, Sr. DAG, Haryana. L.N. MITTAL, J (ORAL) Smt. Roshni having failed in both the Courts below, has filed the instant criminal revision challenging her conviction and sentence. Prosecution case is that Suraj Mal Ex-serviceman was drawing pension. He died on 17.07.1977. His wife Smt. Chhoto alias Bharto had pre-deceased him. However, the petitioner- accused, who is daughter-in-law of Suraj Mal, received pension impersonating her as wife of Suraj Mal by forging documents in this regard. Learned Judicial Magistrate, Ist Class, Sonipat vide judgment dated 12.01.2008 and order dated 14.01.2008 convicted the petitioner under Sections 419, 420, 467, 468 and 471 IPC and Crl. Revision No.983 of 2011 (O & M) - 2 - sentenced her to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years and to pay fine of Rs.2000/- and in default thereof, to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for three months for each of the five offences, but all the sentences were ordered to run concurrently. Appeal against aforesaid judgment and order has been dismissed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sonepat vide judgment dated 22.03.2011. Feeling aggrieved, petitioner has preferred the instant revision petition. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case file. Insofar as conviction of the petitioner is concerned, prosecution has led ample evidence to prove her guilt beyond reasonable doubt. It is undisputed that Suraj Mal died in June/July, 1977 and his wife had pre-deceased him. However, inspite thereof, after the death of Suraj Mal, pension for his wife was drawn. The said pension was drawn by the petitioner alleging herself to be wife of Suraj Mal, although the petitioner is admittedly daughter-in-law of Suraj Mal. Photograph of the petitioner is there in the record as recipient of the aforesaid pension. Consequently, there is no room for doubt that the petitioner committed the offences for which she has been convicted. Accordingly, conviction of the petitioner is affirmed. Learned counsel for the petitioner prays for reduction in sentence. It was submitted that the petitioner was suffering from breast cancer. Some documents of treatment since December, 2009 till April, 2010 have been shown in this regard. It would, however, Crl. Revision No.983 of 2011 (O & M) - 3 - depict that she was cured of the breast cancer which is cureable. It was also submitted that the FIR was lodged in February, 1996 and the petitioner has faced the agony of trial including appeal and revision for 15 years. Prayer for reduction of sentence has been opposed by learned State counsel. I have carefully considered the matter. Keeping in view the fact that period of 15 years has lapsed and the petitioner is a lady, I am of the considered opinion that ends of justice would be met if some reduction in sentence is ordered. Accordingly, I reduce the sentence of rigorous imprisonment from 2 years to 1 year 3 months for each of the offences while maintaining the sentence of fine and the sentence of imprisonment in default thereof. All the substantive sentences of imprisonment shall run concurrently. With reduction in sentence as aforesaid, the instant revision petition is disposed of. (L. N. MITTAL) JUDGE 20.07.2011. A.kaundal