TEJINDER SINGH DHINDSA, J. - (1.) BOTH the appellants stand convicted under Section 304 -B of the Indian Penal Code vide judgment dated 17.3.1999 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Ludhiana and have been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of ten years each and also to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/ - each or in default, to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of three months.
(2.) THE instant appeal has been filed impugning the judgment of conviction as also the order of sentence of the Additional Sessions Judge, Ludhiana carrying even date i.e. Learned counsel for the appellant, at the very outset, would make a statement that he would not be assailing the conviction of the appellants on merits. He, accordingly, prays for indulgence only as regards quantum of sentence by citing that appellant No.1 is a lady, aged 70 years and appellant No.2 even though younger in age, but is a lady who has to take care of three minor children. Learned counsel would further apprise the Court that both the appellants have undergone custody of almost six years and three months each against the substantive sentence of ten years rigorous imprisonment. It is further contended that apart from conviction in the present case, the appellants are not involved in any other criminal proceedings and no case is pending against them.
(3.) LEARNED State counsel has produced the custody certificates of both the appellants. Appellant No.1, namely, Tarsem Kaur has undergone a total custody, including remissions of 6 years, 3 months and 19 days and insofar as appellant No.2 ­ Baldev Kaur is concerned, she has undergone a total custody, including remissions of 6 years, 2 months and 11 days. The assertion made on behalf of the appellants that they are not involved in any other criminal proceedings, has not been disputed on behalf of the State.;