Karnataka High Court
Sri Mohan vs The State Of Karnataka on 24 September, 2020
Bench: B.Veerappa, K.Natarajan
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 24TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2020
PRESENT
THE HON' BLE MR. JUSTICE B. VEERAPPA
AND
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. NATARAJAN
CRIMINAL APPEAL No.395/2015
BETWEEN:
1. SRI MOHAN
S/O RAMESH,
AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS,
OCC: AGRICULTURIST,
2. RAMESH
S/O LINGSHETTAR,
AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS,
3. ALAMELAMMA,
W/O RAMESH,
AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS,
ALL ARE R/O HOSADADAHALLI VILLAGE,
AKKIHEBBALU HOBLI,
K.R. PET TALUK,
MANDYA DISTRICT-571401.
... APPELLANTS
(BY SRI S.Y. SHIVALLI, ADVOCATE)
AND:
THE STATE OF KARNATAKA,
REPTD., BY K.R.PETE RURAL POLICE STATION,
NOW REPTD., BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
2
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA BUILDING,
BANGALORE-560001.
... RESPONDENT
(BY SRI VIJAYA KUMAR MAJAGE, ADDITIONAL STATE
PUBLIC PROSECUTOR)
****
THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION
374(2) OF THE CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, 1973,
PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 13.3.2015,
PASSED BY THE III ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS
JUDGE, MANDYA, SITTING AT SRIRANGAPATNA, IN S.C.
No.5005/2013 CONVICTING THE APPELLANT/ACCUSED
No.1 TO 3 FOR THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER
SECTION 498(A) AND 304(B) OF IPC AND SECTIONS 3,4, &
6 OF D.P. ACT.
THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL COMING ON FOR HEARING
THIS DAY, B.VEERAPPA, J, DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT
The present Criminal Appeal is filed by accused Nos.1 to 3/appellants against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 13.03.2015 made in S.C.No.5005/2013 on the file of the III Additional District and Sessions Judge, Mandya, sitting at Srirangapatna, sentencing the accused Nos.1 to 3 to undergo imprisonment for life for the offence punishable under Section 304B of the Indian Penal Code; further 3 sentenced to undergo imprisonment for a period of one year and to pay fine of Rs.5,000/- each and in default of payment of fine, to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one month for the offence punishable under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code; further sentenced to undergo imprisonment for a period of five years and to pay fine of Rs.15,000/- each and in default of payment of fine to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of three months for the offence punishable under Section 3 of the Dowry Prohibition Act; to undergo imprisonment for a period of six months and to pay fine of Rs.10,000/- each and in default of payment of fine to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of two months for the offence punishable under Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act; to pay fine of Rs.10,000/- each and in default of payment of fine to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of two months for the offence punishable under Section 6 of the Dowry Prohibition Act.
4
2. It is the case of the prosecution that, the complainant-Jayaramashetty/P.W.3 is the resident of Mirlie village, K.R.Nagar. Complainant's younger brother late Vijayendra's daughter Shruthi's marriage was solemnized with accused No.1-Mohan Kumar, S/o Ramesh, on 06.11.2011. Accused No.2 is the father and accused No.3 is the mother of accused No.1. At the time of marriage, golden ornaments weighing 80 grams and cash of Rs.1,00,000/- were given as gift. After one month of the marriage, accused Nos. 1 to 3 started ill- treating Shruthi by harassing her both mentally and physically, demanding further dowry. Shruthi disclosed the said harassment to the complainant and others when she came to her parent's place. The village elders called panchayath and advised the accused Nos.1 to 3 not to ill-treat her. On 16.03.2012, Shruthi called the complainant's brother Bheema-P.W.4 through phone and disclosed that accused persons have ill-treated her 5 both physically and mentally and requested Bheema to set-right the things as at any time the accused persons may kill her. On 17.03.2012 at 3.00 pm, accused No.2 called the complainant and told that he need to talk something and asked him to come to their village. The complainant asked his younger brothers i.e., Bheema and Narayana to go to the matrimonial home of Shruthi. As such, on reaching Shruthi's home, complainant's brothers informed the complainant that the accused persons have killed Shruthi and hanged her. Immediately, the complainant came to Dadadahalli village and on enquiry, accused persons told that Shruthi hanged herself. The dead body of Shruthi was kept in the Atta. In the complaint it is stated that demanding further dowry, the accused persons ill treated Shruthi and that is the reasons for Shruthi's death.
6
3. After receipt of the complaint, K.R.Pet police registered a case in Crime No.59/2012 for the offences punishable under Sections 302, 304B r/w 34 of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961. After investigation, P.W.18- Investigating Officer filed charge sheet for the offences punishable under Sections 498A, 304B r/w 34 of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 3, 4 and 6 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961. After committal, the learned Sessions Judge framed the charges against accused Nos.1 to 3, read over the same to the accused persons, who pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.
4. In order to prove the guilt of the accused persons, prosecution examined witnesses P.Ws.1 to 18 and marked the documents Exs.P.1 to 23 and material objects M.Os.1 to 12. After completion of the evidence of prosecution witnesses, the statements of the accused persons were recorded as contemplated under Section 7 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The accused persons denied all the incriminating evidences adduced against them and neither lead any defence evidence nor marked any documents.
5. The learned Sessions Judge, after considering the entire material on record, recorded a finding that, the prosecution has proved beyond reasonable doubt that three months prior to 17.03.2012, accused Nos.2 and 3 performed the marriage of accused No.1 with deceased Shruthi and at the time of the marriage, accused persons demanded Rs.1,00,000/- cash and 80 grams gold, the complainant and others gave Rs.40,000/- cash, gold ring, watch and performed the marriage. The accused persons ill-treated Shruthi both physically and mentally, demanding further dowry; on 16.03.2012 and 17.03.2012, accused No.1 being the husband and accused Nos.2 and 3 being the in-laws of deceased Shruthi, with common intention, on demand of further 8 dowry, in furtherance of common object, ill-treated the deceased Shruthi both physically and mentally, and due to that humiliation, Shruthi hanged herself to the wooden rafter of the house and died; and further, the prosecution proved beyond reasonable doubt that at the time of marriage, accused Nos.1 to 3 received dowry from the parental family members of late Shruthi and failed to return that dowry, and thereby, the prosecution has proved the charges framed against the accused persons beyond reasonable doubt. Accordingly, the learned Sessions Judge by the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence, sentenced the accused Nos.1 to 3 for the offences punishable under Sections 304B and 498A of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 3, 4 and 6 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961. Hence, the present Criminal Appeal is filed by accused No.s1 to 3.
9
6. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties to the lis.
7. Sri S.Y.Shivalli, learned counsel for the appellants /accused Nos.1 to 3 contended with vehemence that the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by the learned Sessions Judge sentencing the accused Nos.1 to 3 for the offences punishable under Sections 304B, 498A of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 3, 4 and 6 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 is without any basis and cannot be sustained. The marriage of the accused No.1 with deceased Shruti was performed on 06.11.2011 and Shruthi died on 17.03.2012 by hanging herself. The demand for dowry by the accused persons has not been proved by the prosecution beyond reasonable doubt. As per the complaint-Ex.P.7, at the time of marriage, 80 grams gold and cash of Rs.40,000/- was given to Shruthi as gift and the same is customary in nature and therefore, 10 it cannot be said that accused Nos.1 to 3 demanded dowry. The evidence of P.Ws.3, 4 and 15 with regard to demand for dowry is inconsistent and is the improved version of the complaint averments. The inconsistency in the evidence of the prosecution witnesses with regard to demand for dowry has not been considered by the learned Single Judge.
8. He further contended that there is delay in lodging the complaint. Though the incident occurred at 3.00pm on 17.03.2012, admittedly, the complaint is lodged at 11.30 pm. Since no explanation is given for the delay, the same is fatal to the case of the prosecution. The allegation that Shruthi lived happily only for one month in the matrimonial home with the accused persons is a general allegation and the same has not been proved beyond reasonable doubt. The averments made in the evidence of the prosecution witnesses is nothing but omnibus statement and there are no allegations against 11 any of the accused persons with regard to demand for dowry and cruelty meted out to the deceased. The recoveries made by the police is from the dead body of the deceased and not from accused No.3. The watch and ring were recovered from accused No.1 and not accused No.3. Absolutely there is no material against accused No.3. She has been implicated only on the basis of the complaint. There is nothing on record to show that accused No.3 is involved in the offence and she is the cause for death of Shruthi.
9. He further contended that the learned Sessions Judge erred in holding that the prosecution has proved beyond reasonable doubt that there was demand and receipt of dowry by accused Nos.1 to 3, ignoring the averments made in the complaint which clearly depicts that the gold and cash were given to Shruthi as gift which is customary and no dowry was given to accused persons. A careful perusal of the evidence of P.Ws.2 to 12 15 depicts that the prosecution has not proved the demand and acceptance of dowry by the accused persons at the time of marriage. As such, punishing the accused persons for the offences under Sections 3, 4 and 6 of the Dowry Prohibition Act would not arise at all.
10. Learned counsel further contended that the prosecution has not proved beyond reasonable doubt that harassment and cruelty with regard to dowry was meted out to the deceased 'soon before her death'. Therefore, offence under Sections 304B or 498A of the Indian Penal Code would not attract. All the prosecution witnesses are relatives of the deceased and are highly interested witnesses. Therefore, their evidence cannot be relied upon to prove the alleged guilt of the accused persons. Absolutely there is no material against the accused persons, in particular, accused Nos.2 and 3, with regard to demand of dowry, cruelty 13 and harassment to the deceased to attract the offences punishable under Sections 498A, 304B of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 3, 4 and 6 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961.
11. He further contended that admittedly the jurisdictional police have not seized the mobile phone of the deceased as well as P.W.4, and the doctor who examined the deceased has stated that there are no injuries on the body of the deceased. Therefore, the question of assaulting the deceased with regard to demand for dowry would not arise at all. The said aspect has not been considered by the learned Sessions Judge. Therefore, he sought to allow the Criminal Appeal.
12. In support of his contentions, learned counsel for the appellants/accused Nos.1 to 3 relied upon the following judgments:
14
(i) Baijnath and others vs. State of Madhya Pradesh reported in (2017)1 SCC 101, para-35;
(ii) State of Karnataka vs. Dattaraj and others reported in (2016)12 SCC 331, para-17 to 20;
(iii) Ramaiah alias Rama vs. State of Karnataka reported in (2014)9 SCC 365, para-20 to 22;
(iv) Manohar Lal vs. State of Haryana reported in (2014)9 SCC 645, para-17 to 21;
(v) Mahesh Kumar vs. State of Haryana reported in (2019)8 SCC 128, para-9 to 13.
13. Per contra, Sri Vijayakumar Majage, learned Additional State Public Prosecutor, while justifying the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence, contended that the there is specific allegation in the complaint against accused Nos.1 to 3 with regard dowry harassment and cruelty including the assault. The evidence of P.Ws.3, 4 and 11 clearly indicates that there was constant harassment to the deceased with regard to 15 dowry due to which the deceased was forced to take extreme step of hanging herself. Admittedly, the marriage between the accused No.1 and the deceased Shruthi was performed on 06.11.2011 and she died on 17.03.2012 i.e., within four months of the marriage and it is an unnatural death. Therefore, the offence under Sections 304B and 498A of the Indian Penal Code, attracts. It is further contended that, in view of the receipt of dowry at the time of marriage and demand for additional dowry after the marriage, the offence under Sections 3, 4 and 6 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, attracts. Except the witnesses who are the adjoining neighbours of the accused who turned hostile, all other witnesses have supported the case of the prosecution. The evidence of P.Ws.3, 4, 5, 11 and 15 has to be considered, as nothing has been elicited in their cross- examination that the accused Nos.1 to 3 never demanded dowry and never harassed the deceased. 16 Hence, the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence is just and proper.
14. The learned Addl.SPP further contended that deceased died within four months of the marriage when she was in her matrimonial home and the accused No.1 being the husband and accused Nos.2 and 3 being the in-laws have not discharged of the initial burden as to under what circumstances, Shruthi hanged herself and died. In the absence of discharge the initial burden, presumption has to be drawn that deceased was subjected to harassment and cruelty by the accused persons with regard to demand for dowry. The information received by P.W.4 from the deceased on the previous day of the incident corroborates with the evidence of P.Ws.3 and 15. He further contended that, P.W.13-Dr.Jayashekhar who conducted postmortem of the dead body and issued postmortem report as per Ex.P.16 has opined that the cause of death is due to 17 asphyxia and venous congestion as a result of hanging. The evidence of P.Ws.3, 4, 5, 9, 10, 11, 13, 14 and 15 along with material objects recovered, clearly depicts that the prosecution has proved the case beyond reasonable doubt and this Court cannot interfere with the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence, in exercise of powers under Section 374 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Therefore, he sought to dismiss the Criminal Appeal.
15. In view of the rival contentions urged by the learned counsel for the parties, the only point that arises for our consideration is:
"Whether the accused persons/appellants have made out any case to interfere with the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence, in the facts and circumstances of the present case?"
16. In order to re-appreciate both oral and documentary evidence, it is relevant to consider the 18 evidence of prosecution witnesses and the material documents relied upon.
17. P.W.1-Shivaramegowda, Panchayath Development Officer issued the copy of the demand register extract of the house of the accused No.2-Ramesh as per Ex.P.1.
18. P.W.2-Jayaswamy, Junior Engineer, P.W.D, prepared the spot sketch as per Ex.P.2 where the deceased hanged herself.
19. P.W.3-Jayaramashetty-complainant reiterated the averments made in the complaint-Ex.P.7.
20. P.W.4-Bheema has stated that, one day prior to the incident, he received the phone call from the deceased informing him about the harassment and cruelty meted out to her by the accused persons. 19
21. P.W.5-Sheshashetty, an elder person in the village who participated in the marriage talks, supported the case of the prosecution.
22. P.W.6-Papashetty, P.W.7-Girisha, P.W.8- Rajashetty are the panchayathdars who participated in the marriage talks and neighbours of the accused, turned hostile.
23. P.W.9-Mohan, panch witness to the seizure of clothes, stool and veil marked as M.Os. 4 and 5 seized under Ex.P.8.
24. P.W.10-A.S.Kittu, is the panch witness to the seizure mahazar-Ex.P.14 under which M.Os.1 to 3 (marked the same objects as M.Os.10 to 12 for the second time) were seized.
25. P.W.11-Premamma is the mother of the deceased, who reiterated the averments made in the complaint and stated that there was constant demand of dowry, 20 cruelty and harassment to her daughter 'soon before her death' by the accused persons.
26. P.W.12-Mahesha, is the witness to the inquest panchanama-Ex.P.15 in the Government Hospital mortuary.
27. P.W.13-Dr.M. Jayashekhar, conducted the postmortem on the body of the deceased and issued the report as per Ex.P.14 and opined that cause of death is due to asphyxia and venous congestion as a result of hanging, time since death is approximately 12 hours to 24 hours and the veil can bear the weight of the body.
28. P.W.14-H.N.Nagaraju, Tahsildar, conducted inquest as per Ex.P.15.
29. P.W.15 - Narayanashetty, uncle of the deceased identified the dead body at the spot i.e., in the matrimonial home of the deceased.
21
30. P.W.16-Shivanna, witness to the inquest panchanama-Ex.P.15 supported the prosecution case.
31. P.W.17-Renukaprasad, Station House Officer registered the complaint as per Ex.P.18.
32. P.W.18 - Kala Krishnaswamy, Dy.S.P. and Investigating Officer investigated the case and filed the final report.
33. Based on the aforesaid oral and documentary evidence on record, the learned Sessions Judge recorded a finding that the prosecution has proved the demand and receipt of dowry at the time of marriage by the accused persons. During the course of trial and while recording statement under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the accused persons have admitted the fact that the marriage of the deceased with accused No.1 was performed four months prior to the incident, she was residing in the matrimonial home 22 along with accused Nos.1 to 3 and died by hanging herself. The learned Sessions Judge further recorded a finding that, in view of the evidence of P.Ws.3 to 5, 11, 15 and 16, the prosecution proved beyond reasonable doubt that the deceased was subjected to cruelty by her husband and in-laws in connection with demand for dowry. In view of the same, presumption is available in favour of the prosecution under Section 113B of the Indian Evidence Act that the death of death of Shruthi is 'dowry death'. Shruthi died within three months of the marriage in the matrimonial home. The accused persons have not adduced any evidence when they have been charged for the offence of dowry death and they have not entered the witness box. Therefore, the learned Sessions Judge convicted the accused persons.
34. On re-appreciation of the entire material on record, it is clear that a common charge was framed by the learned Sessions Judge on 16.11.2013 with regard 23 to demand for dowry at the time of marriage so as to attract Section 498A r/w 34 of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 3, 4 and 6 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, and after one month of the marriage, with a common intention of getting more dowry, the accused persons ill- treated the deceased both physically and mentally by which she hanged herself and thereby the accused persons committed an offence under Section 304B r/w 34 of the Indian Penal Code.
35. A careful reading of the averments made in the complaint, makes it clear that at the time of marriage, the accused persons received Rs.40,000/- cash, golden chain, ring and watch as dowry. After one month of the marriage, the accused Nos.1 to 3 started to ill-treat the deceased both physically and mentally demanding additional dowry and therefore, panchayaths were held by the elders of the village and on their advise, the accused persons assured them that they will not repeat 24 such things in future. But, on 16.03.2012, being unable to tolerate the harassment given by the accused persons, the deceased Shruthi called P.W.4 through phone and informed him that the accused persons assaulted her physically and harassed mentally, and therefore, she requested P.W.4 to take steps to set right her family, otherwise, at any moment the accused persons may kill her. On the next day at 3.00 pm, accused No.2 called P.W.3 to come to his house as he need to talk some thing. P.W.3 sent P.Ws.4 and 15 to the house of the accused persons at 4.00pm and came to know that Shruthi had died by hanging herself. They in turn informed P.W.3 who came to the house of the accused. By that time, the police had visited the spot and thereafter, shifted the dead body to the hospital. The said averments made in the FIR/complaint is consistent with the evidence of P.Ws.3, 4, 5, 11, 15 and other witnesses. Though the complaint depicts that the gold ornaments and cash were given to deceased 25 Shruthi as gift at the time of marriage, it is clearly stated that after one month of the marriage, accused persons started assaulting the deceased to bring additional dowry and in that behalf, panchayath was held. The panchayathdars are also examined and they have supported the case of the prosecution. Admittedly, the marriage was performed on 06.11.2011 and Shruthi died on 17.03.2012, within four months of the marriage and it is an unnatural death. Therefore, offence under Section 304B of the Indian Penal Code r/w Section 113B of the Indian Evidence Act would attract as there is no defence in the statement of the accused persons recorded under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure with regard to the unnatural death of the deceased. The incriminating questions put to the accused persons are denied as false in toto and have not taken any defence by explaining the probabilities to rebut the presumption.
26
36. Though Sri S.Y.Shivalli, learned counsel for the appellants/accused Nos.1 to 3 tried persuade the Court that absolutely there was no demand of dowry by any of the accused persons and whatever cash and gold given at the time of marriage was customary in nature and it was given to Shruthi and not to the accused persons, the fact remains that the investigating officer recovered ear studs from the dead body and one watch and ring was recovered from accused No.1. If the said items were not given at the time of marriage, why the accused persons not taken any steps to establish the same, is not forthcoming.
37. A careful reading of the evidence of P.Ws.3, 4, 5, 11 and 15 clearly depicts that the said witnesses have consistently stated regarding the demand of dowry and harassment both mentally and physically, by the accused persons. No efforts were made by the defence in the cross-examination to put specific questions with 27 regard to involvement of each of the accused in the offences. The cross-examination is in the form of omnibus. In the cross-examination of prosecution witnesses though the defence counsel tried to take a specific defence that deceased Shruthi died on account of mental stress for the reason that her elder sister married some other person and thereby, the family members of the deceased were abusing the deceased and being frustrated, she hanged herself, the fact remains that the entire case of the prosecution is that there was demand for dowry and continuous mental and physical torture soon before her death. The same is fully supported by the prosecution witnesses.
38. It is relevant to note that, in order to attract the provisions of Section 304B of the Indian Penal Code, a presumption can be raised only on the proof of the following five essentials:
28
a) Death of a woman took place within seven years of her marriage;
b) Such death took place not under normal circumstances;
c) The woman was subjected to cruelty and
harassment by her husband or his
relatives;
d) Such cruelty or harassment was for, or in
connection with, any demand for dowry;
and,
e) Such cruelty or harassment was soon
before her death.
39. In the present case, admittedly, deceased Shruthi has died within seven years of her marriage with accused No.1 and the death is not under normal circumstances and it is an unnatural death. The deceased was subjected to cruelty, harassment by accused Nos.1 to 3 as can be seen from the evidence of prosecution witnesses. The cruelty and harassment in connection with demand for dowry 'soon before her 29 death' has been stated by the prosecution witnesses in categorical terms.
40. The provisions of Section 113B of the Indian Evidence Act is also relevant in the present case.
Section 304B of the Indian Penal Code and Section 113B of the Indian Evidence Act were inserted as noted earlier, by the Dowry Prohibition (Amendment) Act, 43 of 1986 with a view to combat the increasing menace of dowry deaths.
41. On proper evaluation of both oral and documentary evidence of all the witness, except P.Ws.6 to 8, the evidence of all other witnesses and material objects clearly indicates that the prosecution proved its case beyond reasonable doubt to attract the offence punishable under Sections 304B and 498A r/w 34 of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 3, 4 and 6 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961.
30
42. Though the learned counsel for the appellant contended that the accused No.1 being the direct beneficiary, can be inferred to have a cause to life of his wife and cannot infer any reason with regard to accused Nos.2 and 3, unfortunately, there is no cross- examination by the defence counsel to the prosecution witnesses and all prosecution witnesses, in categorical terms have deposed about the harassment and cruelty and nothing is elicited by material witness on prosecution side. Therefore, the said contention cannot be accepted.
43. Though the prosecution proved its case beyond reasonable doubt, in the facts and circumstances of the case, what has to be looked into is, whether the learned Sessions Judge is justified in convicting the accused persons for life for the offences punishable under Section 304B of the Indian Penal Code which is the 31 major punishment for the offence made out in the charge.
44. Considering the averments made in the complaint that cash and 80 grams gold was given to Shruthi as gift, at the time of marriage and taking into consideration the fact that accused No.2 is aged 56 years, served the Nation as a soldier in the Indian Army and accused No.3 being house wife and accused No.1 is aged about 27 years, and taking into consideration the fact that all the family members are convicted for life and unfortunately the deceased died within four months from the date of marriage and it was an unnatural death, while convicting the accused for the offences punishable under Sections 498A and 304B of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 3, 4 and 6 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, imprisonment for life has to be imposed in rare cases and not in every case and mitigating circumstances of each case has to be considered. 32
45. Our view is fortified by the dictum of the Hon'ble Supreme court in the case of Kashmira Devi vs. State of Uttarakhand and others reported in AIR 2020 SC 652, para-24, held as under:
"24. Having arrived at the above conclusion the quantum of sentence requires consideration. The High Court has awarded life imprisonment to the appellant on being convicted under Section 304B IPC. The minimum sentence provided is seven years but it may extend to imprisonment for life. In fact, this Court in the case of Hem Chand vs. State of Haryana (1994) 6 SCC 727: (AIR 1995 SC 120) has held that while imposing the sentence, awarding extreme punishment of imprisonment for life under Section 304B IPC should be in rare cases and not in every case. Though the mitigating factor noticed in the said case was different, in the instant case keeping in view the age of the appellant and also the contribution that would be required by her to the family, while husband is also aged and further taking into consideration all other circumstances, the sentence as awarded by the High Court to the appellant herein is liable to be modified." 33
46. For the reasons stated above, the point raised for consideration in the present Criminal Appeal has to be answered in the affirmative in part holding that the accused persons have not made out a case to interfere with the impugned judgment of conviction, but made out a case only insofar as the sentence.
47. In view of the above, having arrived at the above conclusion, the quantum of sentence requires reconsideration. The learned Sessions Judge has awarded imprisonment for life to all the accused persons. Taking into consideration the mitigating circumstances stated supra, and the fact that the evidence of the Doctor depicts that there are no other external injuries on the body of the deceased, we are of the considered opinion that the impugned order of sentence is liable to be modified.
34
48. For the reasons stated above, we pass the following:
ORDER
(i) The Criminal Appeal is allowed in part.
(ii) The impugned judgment of conviction is confirmed and the order of sentence passed by the learned Sessions Judge sentencing accused Nos.1 to 3 to undergo imprisonment for life for the offence punishable under Section 304B of the Indian Penal Code is hereby modified.
(iii) The accused Nos.1 to 3 are hereby sentenced to undergo imprisonment for seven years for the offence punishable under Section 304B r/w 34 of the Indian Penal Code, which shall include the period of sentence already undergone, if any, as contemplated under Section 428 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. 35
(iv) The judgment of conviction and order of sentence with fine imposed by the learned Sessions Judge in respect of the other offences is hereby confirmed.
(v) All the sentences shall run concurrently.
(vi) The Sessions Court is directed to secure the presence of accused Nos.1 to 3 for serving the remaining period of sentence, in terms of this Order.
Sd/-
JUDGE Sd/-
JUDGE kcm