102 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRA-S-1735-SB-2004 Date of Decision: March 20, 2025 Surjit Singh …Pe..oner Versus State of Punjab …Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK GUPTA Present:- None for the appellant. Mr. Rajeev K. Takkar, DAG, Punjab. DEEPAK GUPTA , J.(Oral) Learned counsel for the appellant has been duly informed. However, there is no representa(on. The convic(on of the appellant was recorded under Sec(on 306 IPC in a case arising out of FIR No.46 dated 06.05.2004, registered at Police Sta(on Makhu. He was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of 05 years and to pay a fine of `1,000/- with default sentence of 01 month. 2. The appellant is father-in-law of deceased. It is a matrimonial dispute. The daughter-in-law of the appellant had commi6ed suicide. 3. Since, nobody is pu7ng in appearance for the appellant, this Court has gone through the judgment of convic(on and finds that convic(on has been recorded based upon proper apprecia(on of evidence. As such, convic(on is maintained. 4. However, as far as order of sentence is concerned, the custody cer(ficate as placed on record by learned State counsel would reveal that the appellant has already undergone sentence of 10 months and 01 day and he is also not involved in any other criminal case. Not only this, in the year 2004 when the convic(on was recorded, the appellant was 70 years old, which means that by now he must be not less then 90 years old. 5. Having regard to the aforesaid circumstances, par(cularly extremely old age of the appellant, the impugned order of sentence as passed by the trial Court is modified to the extent that the appellant is sentenced to imprisonment to the period already undergone by him. As far as the fine is concerned, it will remain same. Disposed of accordingly. March 20, 2025 (DEEPAK GUPTA) sarita JUDGE Whether reasoned/speaking: Yes/No Whether reportable: Yes/No Sarita Rani 2025.03.24 10:07 I attest to the accuracy of this document/order