The court emphasized the principle of proportionality in sentencing and considered the seriousness of the offence and the need for an adequate, just, and commensurate punishment.

JUDGMENT :

Rajeev Singh, J.

The present appeal has been filed against the judgment and order dated 26th May, 2014 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Court No. 5, District Unnao in Session Trial No. 669 of 2009 arising out of Case Crime No. 1635 of 2009, P.S. Gangaghat, District Unnao, convicting the appellant under Sections 304-B I.P.C. and Section 4 of D.P. Act and sentencing him to undergo life imprisonment under Sections 304-B I.P.C. with fine of Rs.5000/-, in default whereof he was ordered to undergo further one year imprisonment. Appellant was also sentenced to undergo two years imprisonment under Section 4 of D.P. Act with fine of Rs.2000/-, in default of payment of which, further three months' imprisonment was ordered. The sentences, so awarded, were to run concurrently.

2. The appeal has been filed on several grounds, but learned counsel for the appellant submitted that he is only challenging the sentence of the offence under Section 304-B I.P.C. on the ground that; (i) the charge was framed under Section 302 I.P.C. and the appellant was acquitted, as the evidence on record does not disclose any extra-ordinary perverse or idolic act on the part of the appellant-accused to take an extreme view of the matter, (ii) at the time of commission of the offence, i.e., on 26.06.2009, appellant-accused was aged about 30 years and as on date, he is aged about 40 years; and (iii) he has no previous record of crime.

Learned counsel for the appellant, in support of his contention relied on various judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court passed in the cases of Sunil Datt Sharma v. State (Government of NCT of Delhi), (2014) 4 SCC 375 and Hemchand v. State of Haryana, (1994) 6 SCC 727.

3. On the other hand, learned A.G.A. vehemently opposed the grounds taken by the appellant on the point of sentence. Relying on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court passed in the case of Trimukh Maroti Kirkan v. State of Maharashtra, (2006) 10 SCC 681, he submitted that in the present case, the deceased was found dead in the house of the appellant and, therefore, no interference is required by this Court.

4. Learned counsel for the complainant, Shri R.B.S. Rathaur was also heard. He supported the version of the learned A.G.A. by relying on various judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court passed in the cases of Shailesh Jasvantbhai & Anr. v. State of Gujrat & Ors., 2006 (2) SCC 359, Narinder Singh & Anr. v. State of Punjab & Anr., 2014 (6) SCC 466, Ravada Sasikala v. State of Andhra Pradesh & Anr., 2017 (4) SCC 546, State of Himachal Pradesh v. Nirmala Devi, 2017 (7) SCC 262 and Raj Bala v. State of Haryana & Ors., (2016) 1 SCC 463.

5. Though the findings of fact have not been challenged on behalf of the appellant, but being the Court of appeal, we consider it appropriate to go through the entire evidence and the impugned order.

Gist of the case is that on the written complaint of the informant-Ram Charan (P.W. 1), F.I.R. was lodged at P.S. Gangaghat, District Unnao with the allegation that his daughter Rama Devi was married with the appellant on 7th March, 2009 and after marriage, the prosecutrix was victimised by the appellant, brother-in-law (Arvan), mother-in-law (Vandana), sister-in-law (Geeta) and uncle of the appellant (Prakash Chandra). He received information on 26.06.2009 that all the said persons killed his daughter. When he reached on the spot, he found grievous injuries on the body of the deceased and the nose of the deceased was chopped. On the written complaint of P.W. 1, the F.I.R. was lodged as Case Crime No. 1635 of 2009 under Sections 498-A and 304-B I.P.C. and Section 3/4 of D.P. Act, P.S. Gangaghat, District Unnao on 26.06.2009 at 1.05 p.m. The inquest of the body of deceased was conducted by the Naib Tehsildar at 1.30 p.m. and it was concluded at 2.30 p.m. P.W. 1, Ram Charan was also the witness of inquest. At the time of preparation of the inquest report, two injuries were noted, one that was on the left lobe of the nose and the second i