IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Crl. Misc. No. A-955-MA of 2010 DATE OF DECISION : 28.10.2010 Malesh Kumar .... APPLICANT Versus State of Punjab and others ..... RESPONDENTS CORAM :- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SATISH KUMAR MITTAL HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JORA SINGH Present: Mr. Harchand Singh Batth, Advocate, for the applicant. * * * SATISH KUMAR MITTAL , J. Malesh Kumar (complainant), who is father of deceased Parampreet Kaur, has filed the appeal along with the application for grant of leave to appeal against the order of sentence dated 28.4.2010, passed by the court of Additional Sessions Judge, Patiala, for enhancement of sentence of seven years rigorous imprisonment imposed upon respondents No.2 and 3 to life imprisonment. In the present case, four accused, namely Maninder Singh, Harpreet Singh (respondent No.2), Devinder Kaur (respondent No.3), and Bhupinder Kaur, who are husband, Jeth (husband' elder brother), Jethani (wife of husband's elder brother) and mother-in-law of the deceased, were tried under Section 304-B/34 IPC, on the allegation that they committed the dowry death of Parampreet Kaur. The case of the prosecution is that soon Crl. Misc. No. A-955-MA of 2010 -2- before her death due to burns, which took place within four months of her marriage, all the accused subjected the deceased to cruelty and harassment in connection with demand of dowry. Vide judgment dated 28.4.2010, all the accused have been convicted for the offence under Section 304-B/34 IPC and vide the order of sentence passed on the same day i.e. on 28.4.2010, the husband and mother-in-law have been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life, whereas the Jeth and Jethani (respondents No.2 and 3) have been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for seven years each. All the four accused have filed Criminal Appeal No. 541-DB of 2010, challenging their conviction and sentence, which is pending. Learned counsel for the applicant argued that respondents No.2 and 3 have been granted lesser sentence. According to him, since for the same offence, accused Maninder Singh and Bhupinder Kaur have been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life, therefore, for the same offence, respondents No.2 and 3 should also have been awarded the same sentence. We have heard learned counsel for the applicant and have gone through the order of sentence. While taking into consideration the relationship of respondents No.2 and 3 with the deceased and the fact that they have two minor children, the trial court has sentenced them to undergo rigorous imprisonment for seven years each. We do not find any illegality in the Crl. Misc. No. A-955-MA of 2010 -3- discretion exercised by the trial court, while awarding the said sentence to these accused. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Hem Chand v. State of Haryana, (1994) 6 Supreme Court Cases 727, has laid down that awarding of extreme punishment of imprisonment for life should be in rare cases and not in every case. As far as respondents No.2 and 3 are concerned, the present case can not be termed as a rare case for awarding of extreme punishment of imprisonment for life. In our view, in the facts and circumstances of the case, respondents No.2 and 3, who are Jeth and Jethani of the deceased, have been adequately sentenced for the offence under Section 304-B IPC. Thus, we do not find any ground to grant leave to appeal. Dismissed. ( SATISH KUMAR MITTAL ) JUDGE October 28, 2010 ( JORA SINGH ) ndj JUDGE