JUDGMENT Mr. Tejinder Singh Dhindsa, J.:- Krishan Lal, Bhagat Ram and Rukmani Devi were convicted under section 306 I.P.C read with section 34 of I.P.C by the learned Sessions Judge, Faridkot vide judgement dated 14.3.2003 and stand sentenced to undergo R.I for a period of 5 years and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/- and in default of payment of fine to further undergo R.I for a period of one year. 2. The instant appeal is directed against the afore-noticed judgement of conviction. 3. It may be noticed at the very outset that Bhagat Ram as also Krishan Lal @ Bal Kishan, appellants have since died. There is a report to this effect of the Dy.S.P., Sub Division, Jaitu. Learned State counsel has also confirmed such factual position. Consequently, the present appeal qua Bhagat Ram and Krishan Lal @ Bal Kishan, appellants, stand abated and survives qua Rukmani Devi alone. 4. Asha Rani, who was married to Krishan Lal (since deceased) i.e. son of Rukmani Devi (sole surviving appellant) is the deceased in this case. 5. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant, very fairly concedes that he would not be in a position to assail the impugned judgement on merits and instead prays for a sympathetic view qua Rukmani Devi as regards quantum of sentence. Counsel cites mitigating circumstances in the nature of Rukmani Devi being almost 70 years old and having remained in custody for a period of almost 4 months. Counsel states that she has already lost her husband as also son during the pendency of the present appeal. 6. Learned State counsel would, however, submit that the appellant Rukmani Devi does not deserve any leniency as she along with her husband and son had been torturing her daughter-in-law, Asha Rani deceased and had created circumstances which led to Asha Rani to commit suicide. 7. Learned counsel for the parties have been heard. 8. Although, learned counsel for the appellant has not assailed the impugned judgement on merits, yet, I have scanned the entire evidence and I am of the view that Rukmani Devi (sole surviving appellant) has been rightly convicted for the charge framed against her. Accordingly, conviction of Rukmani Devi is upheld. 9. Learned counsel for the parties have been heard. 8. Although, learned counsel for the appellant has not assailed the impugned judgement on merits, yet, I have scanned the entire evidence and I am of the view that Rukmani Devi (sole surviving appellant) has been rightly convicted for the charge framed against her. Accordingly, conviction of Rukmani Devi is upheld. 9. However, as regards quantum of sentence is concerned, this Court finds that there are mitigating circumstances which would require to be taken note of and based thereupon to take a lenient and sympathetic view in favour of Rukmani Devi. The occurrence of committing suicide by Asha Rani relates back to the year 2000. As per Custody Certificate produced by learned State counsel, the total custody period of Rukmani Devi including remission is 4 months and 5 days. She has already lost her husband and son during the pendency of the appeal. This Court is of the considered view that the ends of justice would be met, if, the substantive sentence awarded to Rukmani Devi is reduced to the period already undergone by her as it would be too harsh for her to be sent back to jail again in the twilight of her life. 10. In taking such view, I would draw support from the observations made by Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Mohd. Hoshan, A.P. And Anr. V. State of A.P., 2002 (4) R.C.R (Criminal) 155, wherein while upholding the conviction of the appellants therein under Section 306/498-A I.P.C the sentence of the husband of the deceased and mother-inlaw of the deceased was reduced to the period already undergone i.e. for about 2 months and it was held in the following terms:- “The High Court, in our opinion, was right and justified in reversing the order of acquittal and convicting and sentencing the appellants for the offences under Sections 306 and 498-A Indian Penal Code. We find no good reason to interfere with the same. We find no good reason to interfere with the same. However, we think it just and appropriate to modify the sentence of imprisonment for the period already undergone and order accordingly having regard to the fact that both the appellants were in imprisonment for about two months; the incident took place on 9.3.1988; the appellant no.2 is the mother of the appellant no.1 and she is aged 60 years; both the appellants are on bail and it may not be appropriate to send them to jail again. The appeal stands disposed of in the above terms. The bail bonds stand cancelled.” 11. In view of the above, the substantive sentence awarded to appellant Rukmani Devi is reduced to the period already undergone by her. Except for such modification as regards quantum of sentence, the present appeal fails and is hereby, dismissed. 12. Appeal dismissed. ---------0.B.S.0------------