IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
KAUSHAL JAYENDRA THAKER, AJIT SINGH, JJ.
Dharmendar and Others – Appellants
Versus
State of U.P. – Respondents
Criminal Appeal No. 7783 of 2010
Decided On : 12-01-2023
Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Section 304B, Section 498A - D.P. Act - Section 4 – Criminal Offence – Cruelty to wife – Dowry death - Appeal challenges the judgment and order convicting the appellants and sentence – Whether appeal is maintainable – Held, It appears from perusal of impugned judgment that sentence awarded by learned trial court for life term is very harsh keeping in view the entirety of facts and circumstances of the case and gravity of offence – It was held that undue harshness should be avoided taking into account the reformative approach underlying in criminal justice system - Appeal partly allowed
JUDGMENT :
1. This appeal challenges the judgment and order dated 03.11.2010 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Court No. 1, Ramabai Nagar, Kanpur Dehat, in Sessions Trial No. 114 of 2009 (State vs. Dharmendra and Others) arising out from case Crime No. 89 of 2008, under Sections 498A/304B IPC and Section ¾ D.P. Act, Police Station Sikandra, District Ramabai Nagar (Kanpur Dehat) convicting the appellants under Section 498A/304B IPC and Section 4 D.P. Act and sentencing appellant no. 1 under Section 304B IPC for life imprisonment and Section 498A of IPC for rigorous imprisonment of 3 years and fine of Rs. 5,000/- and Section 4 of D.P. Act for rigorous imprisonment of 2 years and fine of Rs. 5,000/- and in default of payment of fine the appellant no. 1 convicting under Section 498A IPC for additional rigorous imprisonment of 6 months and Section 4 of D.P. Act, additional rigorous imprisonment of 6 months, appellant no. 2 - Ansho Devi convicting under Section 304B for rigorous imprisonment of 6 years, under Section 498A IPC for rigorous imprisonment of 2 years and fine of Rs. 3,000/- and Section 4 of D.P. Act for rigorous imprisonment of one year and fine of Rs. 2,000/- and in default of payment of fine the appellant no. 2 under Section 498A IPC additional rigorous imprisonment of 3 months and Section 4 of D.P. Act additional rigorous imprisonment of 2 months and appellant no. 3- Ram Kishun under Section 304B for rigorous imprisonment of 7 years and under Section 304B IPC for rigorous imprisonment of one year and fine of Rs. 2,000/- and Section 4 of D.P. Act for rigorous imprisonment of 6 months and fine of Rs.1,000/- and in default of payment of fine, the appellant no. 3 convicting under Section 498A additional rigorous imprisonment of 2 months and Section 4 of D.P. Act additional rigorous imprisonment of 1 month and all the sentences shall run concurrently.
2. The facts in brief is that Smt Sita Devi, the daughter of the complainant Gorelal, was got married to the accused Dharmendra S/o Ram Kishun on 10-05-2007 as per Hindu rituals. Shortly after the marriage, Dharmendra and his father Ram Kishun as also Ram Kishun's wife Smt Ansho Devi started physically assaulting the daughter of the complainant and used to demand a motor cycle and gold chain otherwise they would kill her some day. On 30-4-2008 at about 12.00 in the night the above accused poured kerosene oil on the daughter of the complainant and set her on fire and the information of which was received by the complainant through certain reliable sources on 1.5.08 at 4.00 in the morning. The complainant immediately rushed to her daughter's place with several persons where he came to know that her daughter was completely burnt and she was got admitted in hospital in Kanpur. The incident was witnessed by several villagers. The complainant is of firm belief that the accused have burnt his daughter to death as the dowry demand could not be fulfilled.
3. Investigation was moved into motion. After recording statements of various persons, the investigating officer submitted the charge-sheet. The learned Chief Judicial Magistrate before whom charge sheet was laid put the same before the learned Sessions Judge. The learned Sessions Judge, on hearing the learned Government Advocate and learned counsel for the accused, framed charges.
4. On being summoned, the accused pleaded not guilty and wanted to be tried, hence, the trial started and the prosecution examined 9 witnesses who are as follows:
| 1. | Gorey Lal | PW-1 |
| 2. | Rani Devi | PW-2 |
| 3. | Gopi Shyam | PW-3 |
| 4. | Dr. R.K. Chaudhary | PW-4 |
| 5. | Karamveer Singh | PW-5 |
| 6. | Chandra Shekhar Verma | PW-6 |
| 7. | Hari Singh | PW-7 |
| 8. | Ayodhya Prasad Sachan | PW-8 |
| 9. | Dr. Anil Kumar Shukla | PW-9 |
5. In support of ocular version following documents were filed:
| 1. | F.I.R. | Ex.Ka.2 |
| 2. | Written Repo | |
Deo Narain Mandal vs. State of U.P. (2004) 7 SCC 257
Guru Basavraj vs. State of Karnataka
Jameel vs. State of U.P. (2010) 12 SCC 532
Mohd. Giasuddin vs. State of A.P. AIR 1977 SC 1926
Ravada Sasikala vs. State of A.P. AIR 2017 SC 1166
Dowry Death - Conviction upheld - Criminal jurisprudence in our country which is reformative and corrective and not retributive, this Court considers that no accused person is incapable of being refo....
Point of Law : Court considers that no accused person is incapable of being reformed and therefore, all measures should be applied to give them an opportunity of reformation in order to bring them in....
The main legal point established in the judgment is the application of the reformative theory of punishment and the doctrine of proportionality in sentencing, emphasizing the need to avoid undue hars....
'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'.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.