Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

Hon'ble Raj Beer Singh, J.

Per: Raj Beer Singh, J. for the Bench

1. This Criminal Appeal has been preferred against judgment and order 07.08.2006 / 08.08.2006 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge / FTC, court No. 3, Basti in Session Trial No. 267 of of 2004 (State Vs. Ram Ajor and another), Police Station Dudhara, District Basti, whereby accused-appellant Ram Ajor has been convicted under sections 498A, 304-B of Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred as IPC) and Section 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act (hereinafter refered as DP Act) and he was sentenced to three years rigorous imprisonment along with fine of Rs. 2000/- under Section 498-A IPC, life imprisonment under section 304-B IPC and one year rigorous imprisonment along with fine of Rs. 2000/- under Section 4 DP Act. All the sentences were directed to run concurrently.

Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Hem Chand Vs. State of Haryana, [(1994) 6 SCC 727] in para no. 7 of the judgment has held as under:-

"7. Now coming to the question of sentence, it can be seen thatSection 304-B I.P.C., lays down that "Whoever commits dowry death shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than seven years but which may extend to imprisonment for life." The point for consideration is whether the extreme punishment of imprisonment for life is warranted in the instant case. A reading of Section 304-B IPC would show that when a question arises whether a person has committed the offence of dowry death of a woman what all that is necessary is it should be shown that soon before her unnatural death, which took place within seven years of the marriage, the deceased had been subjected, by such person, to cruelty or harassment for or in connection with demand for dowry. If that is shown then the court shall presume that such a person has caused the dowry death. It can therefore be seen that irrespective of the fact whether such person is directly responsible for the death of the deceased or not by virtue of the presumption, he is deemed to have committed the dowry death if there were such cruelty or harassment and that if the unnatural death has occurred within seven years from the date of marriage. Likewise there is a presumption under Section 113-B of the Evidence Act as to the dowry death. It lays down that the court shall presume that the person who has subjected the deceased wife to cruelty before her death shall presume to have caused the dowry death if it is shown that before her death, such woman had been subjected, by the accused, to cruelty or harassment in connection with any demand for dowry. Practically this is the presumption that has been incorporated in Section 304-B I.P.C. also. It can therefore be seen that irrespective of the fact whether the accused has any direct connection With the death or not, he shall be presumed to have committed the dowry death provided the other requirements mentioned above are satisfied. In the instant case no doubt the prosecution has proved that the deceased died an unnatural death namely due to strangulation, but there is no direct evidence connecting the accused. It is also important to note in this context that there is no charge under Section 302 I.P.C. The trial court also noted that there were two sets of medical evidence on the file in respect of the death of the deceased. Dr. Usha Rani, P.W. 6 and Dr. Indu Latit, P.W. 7 gave one opinion. According to them no injury was found on the dead body and that the same was highly decom-posed. On the other hand, Dr. Dalbir Singh, P.W. 13 who also examined the dead body and gave his opinion, deposed that he noticed some injuries at the time of re-post mortem examination. Therefore at the most it can be said that the prosecution proved that it was an unnatural death in which case also Section 304-B I.P.C. would be attracted. But this aspect has certainly to be taken into consideration in balancing the sentence to be awarded to the accused. As a matter of fact, the trial court only found that the death was unnatural and the aspect of cruelty has been established and therefore the offences punishable underSection 304-B and 201 I.P.C. have been established. The High Court in a very short judgment concluded that it was fully proved that the death of the deceased in her matrimonial home was a dowry death otherwise than in normal circumstances as a result of cruelty meted out to her and therefore an offence underSection 304-B I.P.C. was made out. Coming to the sentence the High Court pointed out that the accused-appellant was a police employee and instead of checking the crime he himself indulged therein and precipitated in it and that bride killing cases are on the increase and therefore a serious view has to be taken. As mentioned above Section 304-B I.P.C. only raises presumption and lays down that minimum sentence should be seven years but it may extend to imprisonment for life. Therefore awarding extreme punishment for life should be in rare cases and not in every case."

In the case of G.V. Siddaramesh Vs. State of Karnataka, 2010 3 SCC 152, while allowing the appeal filed by the accused only on the question of sentence, the Court altered the sentence from life term to 10 years on more or less similar facts, Hon'ble Apex Court held as under:

"31. In conclusion, we are satisfied that in the facts and circumstances of the case, the appellant was rightly convicted under section 304-B IPC. However, his sentence of life imprisonment imposed by the courts below appears to us to be excessive. The appellant is a young man and has already undergone 6 years of imprisonment after being convicted by the Additional Sessions Judge and the High Court. We are of the view, in the facts and circumstances of the case, that a sentence of 10 years' rigorous imprisonment would meet the ends of justice. We, accordingly while confirming the conviction of the appellant under section 304-B IPC, reduce the sentence of imprisonment for life to 10 years' rigorous imprisonment. The other conviction and sentence passed against the appellant are confirmed."

Recently in Criminal Appeal No. 724 OF 2019 Kashmira Devi Versus State of Uttarakhand & Ors, decided on 28.01.2020, Hon'ble Apex Court reduced the sentence of life under section 304-B IPC to imprisonment for 7 years. In that case, the marriage of deceased was solemnised four years prior of incident and that deceased died of burn injuries. The Hon'ble Apex Court observed as under:

''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 has held that while imposing the sentence, awarding extreme punishment of imprisonment for life under Section 304-B 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.''