Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2026 Supreme(All) 557

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW
RAJESH SINGH CHAUHAN, SUBHASH VIDYARTHI, JJ.
Nand Kishore – Appellant
Versus
State of U.P. – Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 1508 of 2018
Decided On : 22-05-2026

Advocates Appeared:
For the Appellant : Arun Kumar, Ajeet Kumar, Ashok Kumar Singh, Chhote Lal Yadav, Ganesh Nath Mishra, Sanjay Kumar Bajpai
For the Respondent:Govt. Advocate

Judicial discretion in sentencing necessitates balancing aggravating and mitigating circumstances. Imposing maximum punishment without providing cogent reasons for rejecting mitigating factors like prior clean records and prolonged incarceration is arbitrary, requiring appellate intervention to ensure a just, proportional, and reformative sentencing outcome.

Headnote:(A) Criminal Procedure Code - Section 374(2) - Indian Penal Code - Sections 498-A and 304-B - Dowry Prohibition Act - Section 4 - Indian Evidence Act - Section 113-B - Dowry death and cruelty - Sentencing - Trial Court imposing maximum sentence without assigning reasons - Sustainability - Principles of sentencing - Aggravating and mitigating factors - Custodial period as a mitigating factor. (Paras 7, 18, 19.1)

(B) Sentencing - Discretion of Court - Duty to assign reasons - While the court has wide discretion to award sentences, an arbitrary imposition of maximum punishment without addressing specific mitigating factors pleaded by the accused, such as lack of criminal history and economic status, is legally unsustainable. (Paras 18, 19.1)

(C) Reformative Theory of Punishment - The focus of sentencing should be on individual rehabilitation rather than purely retributive measures. Courts are mandated to balance the gravity of the offence with personal circumstances and the duration of mental and physical incarceration already undergone by the accused. (Paras 16, 17, 19)

Facts of the case:
The appellant challenged a conviction and sentence regarding an offence related to the death of his spouse under suspicious circumstances within the matrimonial home. The trial court awarded a life sentence for the primary offence. The appeal before the court was restricted to the quantum of sentence, highlighting that the trial court failed to consider mitigating factors, such as the appellant’s clean criminal record, poor economic condition, and the total duration spent in custody.

Findings of Court:
The trial court committed a legal error by awarding the maximum prescribed sentence for the offence without recording any reasons for rejecting the mitigating circumstances brought forward by the accused. Proportionality and reasoning are essential to valid sentencing, and the long-term incarceration already served serves as a significant mitigating factor.

Issues: Whether the trial court was justified in imposing the maximum life sentence for dowry death without recording reasons for disregarding mitigating factors, and whether the sentence warrants interference in light of prolonged incarceration.

Ratio Decidendi: Judicial discretion in sentencing must be exercised by delicately balancing aggravating and mitigating factors. A failure to provide cogent reasons for rejecting mitigating pleas when sentencing renders an order vulnerable to modification. Sentencing must prioritize reformative justice, especially when an accused has already suffered lengthy incarceration, effectively acting as an extension of the punishment itself.

Result: Appeal allowed in part; conviction upheld, but the sentence was reduced to the period already undergone in custody.

Table of Content
1. procedural context for hearing criminal appeals and bail applications. (Para 1 , 2 , 3)
2. factual basis for conviction and presumption under section 113-b of the evidence act. (Para 4 , 5 , 6 , 7)
3. consideration of mitigating factors and time served for sentence determination. (Para 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12)
4. judicial discretion and sentencing policy regarding s. 304-b ipc. (Para 13 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 18 , 19)
5. mandatory requirement of reasoned sentencing and order for premature release. (Para 20 , 21 , 22 , 23)

JUDGMENT :

Subhash Vidyarthi, J.

1. Heard Shri Ajeet Kumar, the learned counsel for the appellant, and Ms. Meera Tripathi, learned Additional Government Advocate.

2. By means of the instant criminal appeal filed under Section 374 (2) Cr.P.C., the appellant Nand Kishore has challenged the validity of a judgment and order dated 31.07.2018 passed by the learned Special Judge (P.C. Act-3), Lucknow in Session Trial No.891 of 2014 titled ' State Vs. Nand Kishore ', arising out of Case Crime No.127 of 2014, Police Station- Itaunja, District- Lucknow whereby the appellant has been convicted for the offences under Sections 498-A and 304-B I.P.C. and Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. The appellant has been sentenced to undergo 3 years' imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs. 10,000/-, and in case of failure to pay fine, an imprisonment for an additional period of three months for the offence under Section 4 98-A IPC, imprisonment for life for the offence under Section 304-B of IPC, and six months' imprisonment for the offence under Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. All the sentences have been directed to run concurrently.

3. The appeal was admitted by means of an order dated 06.09.2018, whereby the trial Court's record was summoned, and objections were invited on the application for release of the appellant on bail. The first bail application of the appellant was rejected by means of an order dated 14.12.2022. The appellant filed the second application for his release on bail on 22.07.2024, which is still pending. Meanwhile, the trial Court's record has been received and the paper book has also been prepared. Therefore, instead of deciding the bail application, we have proceeded to decide the appeal itself.

4. The aforesaid case was instituted on the basis of an FIR lodged by the complainant stating that the complainant's daughter had got married to the appellant on 06.03.2014. After marriage, her husband and the husband's family members started harassing her by demanding dowry. The complainant's son had gone to bring his sister to her parental home about 15 days ago, but the accused persons had not sent her, saying that his sister would not be sent until Rs. Two lakh cash and a gold chain were given. Upon failure of the complainant to give dowry, the accused persons gave some toxic substance to the deceased in her food, due to which she died on 06.06.2014.

5. The post-mortem examination mentioned two injuries: (1) a contusion of size 5cm x 4cm on the left side of the head, 2 cm above the left ear, and (2) a contusion of size 2 cm x 1.5 cm on the right side of the occipital region. On opening, ecchymosis was present in the above noted injuries. Viscera examination revealed the presence of 'Aluminium Phosphide' in her abdomen.

6. The complainant was examined as PW-1, his wife was examined as PW-2, the complainant’s sons, namely, Ravinder Kumar & Suneel Kumar were examined as PW-3 & PW-4 and all of them supported the prosecution version. The doctor, who had conducted the post-mortem examination, was examined as PW-5, and he proved the post-mortem report. The Tehsildar, who had prepared the inquest report, was examined as PW-7.

7. After going through the entire evidence, the Trial Court concluded that the deceased died in her matrimonial home in unnatural circumstances, within seven years of her marriage. The appellant failed to prove the reasons behind her death; therefore, a presumption has to be drawn under Sect