Rajul Bhargava, J.

1. Heard Sri Tripathi B.G. Bhai, learned counsel for the appellants and Sri Ali Murtaza, learned AGA for the State- respondents.

2. The appellants Garib and Smt. Gujrati in Criminal Appeal No. 172 of 2006 died during the pendency of the appeal and their appeal stood abated vide orders dated 27.3.2015 and 14.2.2017 respectively, therefore, only the appeal no. 542 of 2009 of the appellant Jata Shankar is being considered by us.

3. The instant criminal appeal has been filed by applicant-appellant against the judgement and order dated 23.12.2005 passed by Additional District and Sessions Judge/Fast Track Court no. 1, Siddharth Nagar in S.T. No. 101 of 2005 (State vs. Jata Shankar and others) arising out of Case Crime No. 327 of 2004, under section 498A, 304B IPC and 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act, P.S. Sohratgarh, District Siddharth Nagar and two others convicting and sentencing u/s 304B IPC for life imprisonment, for offence u/s 498A IPC one year imprisonment and u/s 3/4 D.P.Act one year imprisonment and fine of Rs. 1000/- upon each appellant and in default of payment of fine, to further undergo two months imprisonment.

4. The prosecution case in brief as unfolded in the first information report lodged by PW-3 Mantoo on 12.7.2004 at 3.30 pm. is that he had married his daughter to accused appellant Jata Shankar about one year back. Sufficient dowry as agreed upon was given by him to the appellant, thereafter the appellant made a demand of motorcycle from the deceased and informant when the informant could not arrange the same, his daughter was killed by setting her on fire on 10.7.2004 at some unknown time. The said first information report was registered vide Case Crime No. 327 of 2004, under section 498A, 304B IPC and 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act, P.S. Sohratgarh, District Siddharth Nagar. After the registration of the case, investigation was taken up and after thorough investigation the appellant and co-accused Garib and Smt. Gujrati were chargesheeted u/s 498A, 304B IPC and 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act. After committal the appellant along with other co-accused was put to trial and after conclusion of trial the said appellants were convicted for the charge as noted above. The judgement is under challenge in the present appeal.

5. It is pertinent to mention here that an application was moved by the appellant u/s 7A of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection) Act, 2000 for declaring him juvenile in conflict with law. He has fairly submitted that he does not want to press plea of juvenility of the appellant, thus the application moved on his behalf is dismissed as withdrawn.

6. Learned counsel for the appellant advanced many arguments doubting credibility of prosecution witnesses examined during trial, however after some arguments he fairly conceded that he is not challenging the conviction as recorded by the court below but questioning the quantum of sentence only.

7. According to him, the appellant was a young boy aged about 18 years at the time of alleged incident, which took place in the year 2004. We find that the age of the appellant recorded in his statement u/s 313 Cr.P.C. is 19 years after about one year of the incident. He is in jail since the date of conviction i.e. 23.12.2005. He had also remained incarcerated for few months during trial. According to him, taking note of the various factors including the young age of the appellant at the time of incident he has already undergone about 12 years of incarceration, the sentence of life imprisonment is too excessive. He pointed out that the factum of young the age of the appellant, the facts and circumstances of the case were placed before the trial court at the time of hearing on the point of quantum of sentence but were not considered by the trial court while awarding punishment and without assigning any cogent reason for awarding maximum possible punishment for offence u/s 304B IPC which in the facts and circumstances of the case should be mitigated.

8. Learn