The main legal point established in the judgment is the distinction between murder and culpable homicide not amounting to murder, and the application of the reformative theory of punishment in sentencing.

JUDGMENT :

1. Heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned A.G.A. for the state.

2. This appeal challenges the judgment and order dated 01.01.2013 passed by Addl. Sessions Judge Court No. 13, Varanasi in Session Trial No. 500 of 2010 (State of U.P. Vs. Shyam Deo and others) convicting the appellants under Section 302 read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter referred to as 'IPC) with life imprisonment and a fine of 5000/- has also been imposed, in default of which the appellants shall have to under go for further three months imprisonment and appellant no.2 has been convicted under Section 498A I.P.C. with three year rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 2000/-has also been imposed, in default of which the appellant no.2 shall have to go for a term of further two month imprisonment.

3. Brief facts as culled out from the record are that the marriage of the deceased was solemnized with Shyam Deo. The F.I.R. discloses that in the wedding the accused-appellants were given enough dowry but despite that they started harassing deceased and demanded a sum of Rs. 50,000/-and a motorcycle. When the said demand could not be fulfilled, the deceased was harassed by all the accused. Some person had conveyed to the informant that the accused persons had poured kerosene oil on the deceased and had tried to set her ablaze. On the basis of the complaint of the brother of the deceased, the First Information Report was registered on 20.04.2010. The investigation started for commission for offence under Section 498A and 304B Indian Penal Code read with Section 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. Investigation culminated into charge-sheet being laid against Shyam Deo (husband of the deceased), Vindhyanchali (Sister-in-law/ Jethani) under Sections 498A and 304B of IPC and Section 3/4 of D.P. Act. On these brief facts the prosecution was put into motion.

4. The accused were summoned and charges were framed by learned Additional Sessions Judge under Sections 498A and 304B of IPC and Section 4 of D.P. Act with alternative charges under Section 302 read with Section 34 of IPC. The accused-persons pleaded not guilty and wanted to be tried. The offence for which accused was charged was triable by the Court of Sessions, hence, the accused-appellants was committed to the Court of Sessions.

5. The Trial started and the prosecution examined 8 witnesses who are as follows:

6. In support of ocular version following documents were filed:

7. The learned Additional Sessions Judge has convicted the accused-appellants as above.

8. Learned counsel for the appellant has relied on the decisions of Apex Court passed in Criminal Appeal No. 1418 of 2004 (Bengai Mandal alias Begai Mandal vs. State of Biha) decided on 11th January, 2010, in Criminal Appeal No.514 of 2010 (Chirra Shivraj vs. State of Andhra Pradesh) decided on 26 November, 2010, and decisions of this Court in Criminal Appeal No.1438 of 2010 (Smt. Rama Devi alias Ramakanti vs. State of U.P.) decided on 7.10.2014 and Criminal Appeal No. 2558 of 2011 (Smt. Kanti and Another vs. State of U.P.) decided on 1.2.2021 and has contended that there is faulty charge and the charge could not have been re-framed after the examination of witnesses of prosecution side, who did not support the prosecution. This is the contention of the learned counsel for the appellant, and in the alternative, it is submitted that this is a case which does not go beyond Sec