The main legal point established in the judgment is the application of the reformative theory of punishment and the doctrine of proportionality in modifying the appellant's conviction and sentence.

JUDGMENT :

AJAI TYAGI, J.

1. By way of this appeal the appellant Dharmendra Singh has challenged the judgment and order dated 17.03.2016 and order dated 18.03.2016 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge/FTC (Women Criminal Case) Court No. 13, Shahjahanpur in Session Trial No. 330 of 2012 (State vs. Dharendra Singh and Others) arising out of Case Crime No. 175 of 2012, under Sections 498A, 304B IPC and 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act, Police Station- Tilhar, District- Shahjahanpur, whereby accused/appellant was convicted and sentenced under Section 302 IPC for a rigorous life imprisonment with the fine of Rs. 20,000/- and in default of payment of fine, the appellant shall further undergone for five months simple imprisonment.

2. The brief facts of the case as culled out from the record are that a first information report was filed by informant Dhakan Lal at Police Station-Tilhar, District-Shahjahanpur with the averments that the marriage of his daughter, aged 25 years, was solemnized with Dharmendra before two years, in which he has given dowry as per his financial condition, but after marriage Dharmendra and his parents started demanding a motorcycle as additional dowry. Due to non-fulfilment of the aforesaid demand, they started torturing his daughter. Today morning, he had information that Dharmendra and his parents have killed his daughter for want of additional dowry. On this information, the informant went to the matrimonial home of his daughter and found that his daughter’s dead body was lying on the cot. A Case Crime No. 175 of 2012 was registered at Police Station-Tilhar, District- Shahjahanpur u/s 304B, 498A IPC and u/s 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act.

3. The law set into motion and investigation started. The dead body of the deceased was sent to post mortem after conducting the inquest proceedings. Doctor conducted the post mortem and prepared post mortem report. During the course of investigation, I.O. recorded the statements of witnesses u/s 161 of Cr.P.C. After completion of investigation, a charge sheet was submitted against the accused Dharmendra Singh, Mahesh Pal and Smt. Premwati u/s 304B, 498A IPC and 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act and in alternative u/s 302 IPC and further u/s 4 Dowry Prohibition Act. Accused persons denied the charges and claimed to be tried.

4. The prosecution examined the following witnesses:

5. In support of the ocular version of the witnesses, following documents were produced and contents were proved by leading oral evidence:

6. After completion of prosecution evidence, the statements of accused persons, namely, Dharmendra and Smt. Premwati were recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. Accused Mahesh Pal Singh passed away during the course of trial. No defense witness was produced by accused persons.

7. Learned trial court after hearing the both the parties acquitted accused Smt. Premwati from all the charges levelled against her and convicted the appellant-accused Dharmendra Singh for alternative charge u/s 302 IPC and sentenced for life imprisonment and fine of Rs.20,000/-. Hence, this appeal by appellant-Dharmendra Singh.

8. Heard Shri Rajesh Kumar Mishra learned counsel for the appellant, Shri Patanjali Mishra, learned AGA for the State and perused the record.

9. Learned counsel for the appellant first of all submitted that this is a case of no evidence and appellant has been convicted without evidence on record. It is further submitted that witnesses of fact were examined by prosecution, namely, PW-1 Dhakan, who is