Point of Law: 'Reformative theory of punishment' is to be adopted and for that reason, it is necessary to impose punishment keeping in view the 'doctrine of proportionality'.

JUDGMENT :

AJAI TYAGI, J.

1. This appeal has been preferred by the appellant against judgment and order dated 28.03.2017 passed by Additional Sessions Judge/Fast Track Court, Chitrakoot in Session Trial No. 38 of 2015 (State vs. Dinesh Pandey) arising out of Case Crime No. 45 of 2012, under Sections 498A and 304B of IPC and Section 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, Police Station Raipura, District Chitrakoot, by which the accused-appellant was convicted under Section 498A of IPC and sentenced for two years R.I. with fine of Rs. 5,000/- and six months additional imprisonment in default of fine, also convicted under Section 304B of IPC and convicted for life imprisonment and further convicted under Section 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act and sentenced for one year R.I. with fine of Rs. 5,000/- and three months additional imprisonment in default of fine. It was directed that Rs. 5,000/- shall be paid to the claimant, out of the total fine imposed as compensation.

2. The brief facts culled out from the record are that on the basis of a written report submitted by the complainant at Police Station Raipura, District Chitrakoot, a Case Crime No. 45 of 2012 was registered in which averments were made that the daughter of the complainant Babali was married to Dinesh son of Rajkumar Pandey (accused-appellant). Dinesh used to beat his wife Babali for demanding Rs. 50,000/- cash as additional dowry. It is also averred in the First Information Report that the marriage of the daughter of the complainant was solemnized with Dinesh before four years of the occurrence and one son was born out of the wedlock. On 06.04.2012, Dinesh came to the village of the complainant and took away Babali with him. On the next date his daughter told to her uncle that if Rs. 50,000/- were not given to Dinesh, he will kill her. On 09.04.2012 it was informed to the complainant on phone by the younger daughter of the complainant that she had received information of the death of Babali. When the complainant and other family members went to the house of the deceased Babali, they saw several injuries on her body.

3. In pursuance of the aforesaid first information report, investigating officer took up the investigation and visited the spot. Site-plan was prepared and inquest report was also prepared. The body of the deceased was sent for post mortem. Concerned doctor conducted the post mortem and prepared the post mortem report. I.O. recorded the statements of witnesses. After completing the investigation, I.O. submitted charge-sheet against accused-Dinesh Pandey under Sections 498A and 304B of IPC and Section 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act. The matter being triable by Court of Session was committed to the Court of Session for trial.

4. The learned trial court framed charges against the accused under Sections 498A and 304B of IPC and under Section 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act. Alternative charge under Section 302 IPC was also framed. The accused denied the charge and claimed to be tried. The prosecution so as to bring home the charges, examined the following witnesses:

5. In support of the aforesaid ocular testimony, the prosecution also submitted following documents and got proved by leading the evidence:

6. After completion of prosecution evidence,