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 harshness and consider the reformative approach underlying the criminal justice system.

JUDGMENT :

1. This appeal has been filed challenging the judgment and order dated 02.06.2018 passed by Session judge, Mahoba in Session Trial No.108 of 2015, arising out of Case Crime No.260 of 2015, under Section 302 I.P.C., Police Station Mahoba, district Mahoba, whereby convicting the appellant under Section 302 I.P.C. and awarded the sentence for life imprisonment and a fine of Rs.10,000/-and in default of payment of fine 4 months additional simple imprisonment.

2. The prosecution story in brief is that the informant Sattar Khan @ Bhure had solemnized marriage of his daughter Nazreen with the accused Zakir on 3.4.2021 according to Muslim rights as per his status and given adequate dowry but the husband of the daughter of the informant and his other family members were not satisfied with the given dowry and they were demanding Rs. 2,00,000/-cash and a car as an additional dowry and due to non-fulfillment whereof, the daughter of the informant was tortured and maltreated by them in her matrimonial home and ultimately in the night of 9/10.4.2015 she was set on fire and on 6.5.2015 during treatment she succumbed to the burn injuries.

3. The investigation of the case was entrusted to the Circle Officer, Sadar, who inspected the place of occurrence and prepared the site plan and recorded the statement of witnesses. After completion of investigation, the Investigating Officer has submitted charge-sheet only against the accused-appellant Zakir Hussain, under Sections 498A, 304-B I.P.C. and Section ¾ Dowry Prohibition Act on 27.06.2015 and the cognizance was taken by the Magistrate and considering that the case was triable by the Session Judge and it was committed to the court of session and the Session Court charged the accused under Sections 498-A, 304-B I.P.C. and Section ¾ Dowry Prohibition Act.

4. In order to prove its case the prosecution has examined eight witnesses, who are as follows :

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

6. The prosecution laid the evidence against the accused and the court after prosecution evidence examined the accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C. and the accused submitted that he has been falsely implicated in the present case with ulterior intention of harassing him. He pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. The learned Sessions Judge framed charges under Sections 498-A, 304-B of I.P.C. and Section ¾ of D.P. Act.

7. After considering the evidence available on record the trial court convicted the accused as aforesaid. Being aggrieved by the conviction judgment and order this appeal has been filed.

8. Heard Sri Irshad Mohammad, assisting Sri Noor Mohammad, learned counsel for the appellant on modification of sentence and learned A.G.A. for the State.

9. Learned counsel for the accused/appellant submits that the appellant has been falsely implicated by the informant as there was no demand of additional dowry on the part of the appellant. When the alleged incident is said to have taken place the accused was not present at the spot. He further submits that the incident occurred due to burst of stove on which she was cooking food. She burnt accidentally and in the process her clothes caught fire, causing serious injuries to her. After hearing the alarm raised by the deceased, the in-laws of the deceased reached at the spot and tried to save her and in this process they also received burn injuries. No one had set her ablaze but the prosecution has tried to give in a colour of dowry death. There is no d