Deshraj And Another vs State Of U.P.

AFR
RESERVED
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 4008 of 2021
Deshraj and another
…..Appellant(s)
Versus
State of U.P.
…..Respondent(s)
Counsel for Appellant(s) : Akhilesh Pandey, Jagmohan Singh,
Jainendra Kumar Mishra, Syed
Mohammad Abbas Abdy
Counsel for Respondent(s) : G.A.
Court No. - 2
HON'BLE J.J. MUNIR, J.
HON'BLE VINAI KUMAR DWIVEDI, J.
(Delivered by Hon’ble Vinai Kumar Dwivedi, J.)
1. This Criminal Appeal has been filed by the accused-appellants
Deshraj and Ram Sajeevan against the judgment and order of conviction
and sentence passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Court
Room No. 26, Kanpur Nagar in S.T. No. 514 of 2016 State Vs. Desh Raj
and Others and Sessions Trial No. 655 of 2016 State Vs. Ram Sajeevan,
both arising out of same Crime No. 314 of 2016 under Sections 498A,
304B, 302 I.P.C., and 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act, Police Station
Naubasta, District Kanpur Nagar. By the impugned judgment and order
of conviction and sentence, learned Trial Court held guilty and convicted
to accused-appellant Deshraj and Ram Sajeevan under Section 304B
I.P.C., for life imprisonment. The accused-appellant Deshraj and Ram

2
CRLA No. - 4008 of 2021
Sajeevan were also held guilty under Section 498A I.P.C and convicted
for two years simple imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 5,000/-. In default
of payment of fine, they were ordered to serve an additional
imprisonment for one month. The accused-appellants Deshraj and Ram
Sajeevan were also held guilty under Section 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act
and convicted for two years simple imprisonment and a fine of Rs.
5,000/-. In case of default of payment of fine, they were ordered to serve
one month of additional simple imprisonment.
2. Brief fact as is revealed from the written report-exhibit Ka-1 is
that, informant Sitapati (P.W.-1), who is resident of Village Chauhanpur,
P.S. Udaipur, District Pratapgrah, has lodged a written report-exhibit Ka-
1, at Police Station Naubasta, stating therein that, applicant had married
her daughter with Deshraj son of Ram Sajeevan, resident of Kidwai
Nagar, P.S. Naubasta, District Kanpur Nagar on 11.06.2014, after giving
full gift and dowry according to custom and traditions, but the in-laws of
my daughter were not satisfied with the dowry and they had been
demanding Rs. 5,00,000/- in dowry. The economic condition of my
family was not so sound so that above demand could be fulfilled. On this
thing, husband of Savita, father-in-law Ram Sajeevan, Pappu son-in-law
of Ram Sajeevan, Lalita daughter of Ram Sajeevan were beating her
due to this demand of dowry and for many days, they had not give her
food and many times they attempted to kill her by pouring kerosene oil.
This thing was told by my daughter Savita to us, when she came to my
home. Applicant and her husband tried to persuade the in-laws of Savita,
but they were not agreed. On the occasion of festival of Holy, my
daughter had came to my house. When she had returned with her
husband Deshraj, then, at the time of departure, Deshraj had given this
intimidation that if you cannot give Rs.5,00,000/-, then your daughter
will not return at home. On 28.04.2016, at 1:00 hours in day, Pappu
(Nandoi) of my daughter Savita has informed that your daughter has
died. When we went at the home of my daughter then saw that my
daughter was not at home; after receiving information from neighbours,
we all went at postmortem house and saw my daughter in dead

3
CRLA No. - 4008 of 2021
condition. All the above peoples by a common intention, had murdered
my daughter by strangulating her neck for not fullfiling further demand
of dowry.
3. After lodging the written report-exhibit Ka-1, by informant
Sitapati P.W.-1, First Information Report -Exhibit Ka-9 was registered as
Crime No. 314 of 2016 at P.S. Naubasta, District Kanpur Nagar, under
Section 498A, 304B, I.P.C., and 3/4 D.P. Act, on 01.05.2016 at 13:13
hours by then Constable Clerk Ashok Tiwari, PW-6. After registration of
the F.I.R. exhibit-Ka-9, investigation of the case was taken up by Vishal
Pandey P.W-8, the Investigating Officer reached at the spot and
inspected the place of occurrence on the pointing out of the informant
Sitapati and prepared site plan. He got prepared panchayatnama of dead
body of Savita. He prepared other necessary police papers. The dead
body of deceased Savita was sent for postmortem examination.
4. After transfer of first I.O. Vishal Pandey PW-8, investigation of
the case was taken by second I.O. Gyanendra Kumar Singh, PW-7.
Second I.O. Gyanendra Kumar Singh, PW-7 completed the
investigation, he recorded the statement of the prosecution witnesses
under Section 161 Cr.P.C. After completion of all the formalities of
investigation, the second I.O. Gyanendra Kumar Singh, PW-7 has filed
charge-sheet exhibit Ka-11 against accused Deshraj, Pappu and Lalita.
Thereafter second I.O. Gyanendra Kumar Singh, PW-7 also filed a
charge-sheet exhibit Ka-12 against accused-appellant Ram Sajeevan.
5. Dr. Sumit Kumar Mishra, PW-5, examined the dead body of the
deceased Savita and prepared postmortem report exhibit Ka-8.
According to postmortem report exhibit Ka-8 of deceased Savita, which
was prepared by Dr. Sumit Kumar Mishra PW-5, following ante mortem
injuries were found on her dead body:
1. Abraded contusion measuring 7 cm × 2 cm on the front
side of the neck, starting between the lower jaw and
extending 5 cm downward, up to the thyroid cartilage.
On cutting the above injury, clotted blood was found
underneath it.
2. Abraded contusion measuring 1 cm × 1 cm located below
the left side of the lower lip.

4
CRLA No. - 4008 of 2021
3. Contusion measuring 5 cm × 3 cm on the left eye.
4. Contusion measuring 4 cm × 3 cm present on the
occipital area (back portion) of the head. Cause of death was
asphyxia due to ante mortem throttling.
6. After submission of the charge-sheet by Second I.O. Gyanendra
Kumar PW-7 in the concerned Magistrate’s Court having jurisdiction,
the case was committed to the Court of Session for trial because case
was totally triable by Court of Session.
7. On 30.09.2016, charges were framed by the trial Court against
accused persons Lalita, Deshraj, Pappu under Sections 498A, 304B
I.P.C. and Section 3/4 D.P. Act. The learned trial Court also framed
alternative charge against above accused persons under Section 302
I.P.C. Learned trial Court also framed charge against accused appellant
Ram Sajeevan under Section 498A, 304B I.P.C. and also an alternative
charge under Section 302 I.P.C. was framed by the trial Court against
Ram Sajeevan on 20.12.2016. The accused persons denied from the
charge and claim for the trial.
8. In support of their case, prosecution examined and adduced
prosecution witnesses informant Sitapati Devi PW-1, Dinesh Kumar
PW-2, Anil Kumar PW-3, Gyanendra Kumar Dwivedi, PW-4 , Dr. Sumit
Kumar Mishra PW-5, Ashok Tiwari, PW-6 Gyanendra Kumar Singh
(C.O) PW-7 and Vishal Pandey (C.O.) PW-8. Harilal father of the
deceased Savita was also adduced and examined as CW-1. Apart from
the above ocular evidence, prosecution also relied on documentary
evidence as Exhibit Ka-1 to Exhibit Ka-13 in support of their case.
9. After recording of the evidence of all the prosecution witnesses,
trial Court examined all the accused persons under Section 313 Cr.P.C.
In their statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C., all the accused persons
denied from the charge and all of theme have stated that they were
falsely and wrongly implicated in the case. They have not committed the
alleged crime. Accused appellant Deshraj have also sated in his
statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C., that he is innocent. The family
members of the in-laws of my wife had come before four to five days of
the incident in the Mundan Ceremony of my daughter.. At the time of the

5
CRLA No. - 4008 of 2021
incident, all the family members of the in-laws of my wife were present
at my home. We all the people, my father and sisters were out of home. I
had went at my work place at 06:00 p.m. After returning home, then I
know about the incident. In his written statement under Section 313
Cr.P.C., accused-appellant Deshraj also stated that he is a very poor
person. Applicant lived in a kachcha hut (Madhai). By the applicant
never demand of dowry has been made nor he committed cruelty of any
kind before four days of the incident. The family members of my wife,
such as mother, father, brothers, sisters, had come in the Mundan
Ceremony of my daughter. Between my wife Savita and my father-in-
law Harilal, Savita a quarrel occurred among them on the point of not
giving money for wine. On the day of incident on 28.04.2016, the
applicant was in Ordinance Factory Kalpi Road, Kanpur for training of
BTR from the morning at 07.45 am to evening 16:45 pm. He remained
present in the Ordinance Factory. When he returned home, then he came
to know about the incident. My father has demanded an information
under the Right to Information Act from G.C. Rawat, Additional G.M.
Ordinance Factory/Central Information Officer. My father-in-law had
give information on 28.04.2016 by a written application at Police Station
Naubasta, Kanpur. That was registered in the GD No. 47 at night (10:00
pm). However, after that my mother-in-law (Saas) had given second
false application, implicated to me and my family members, registered a
false case against me and my family members. My sister was married
twenty years back and they were living in District Pratapgarh and my
father is too old and ill person and by pulling rickshaw trolley nearby for
earning their livelihood. The accused-appellant Ram Sajeevan has also
stated in his statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C., that mother and father
of my daughter-in-law Savita were present at the time of incident; I was
out of house; I am innocent; I had never demanded a single penny in the
form of dowry.
10. In their statements under Section 313 Cr.P.C, accused-appellants
submitted that they adduced their defence evidence. The accused-
appellant examined Ram Kishore DW-1, Matadeen DW-2, Raj

6
CRLA No. - 4008 of 2021
Vishwakarma as DW-3, Shyam Kumar Bajpayee as DW-4, Anjani
Kumar Tiwari as DW-5 and Lalit Mohan Shukla as DW-6 in their
statements.
11. The learned trial Court after recording evidence of both the sides,
heard arguments of the accused person and found guilty to them. The
trial Court does not find any evidence against accused-Lalita and Pappu
for the alleged crime under Section 304B, 498A IPC., and Section 3/4
D.P. Act, hence acquitted accused Lalita and Pappu. The trial Court
found accused-appellant Deshraj and Ram Sajeevan, guilty under
Section 498A, 304B IPC and Section 4 of D.P. Act and convicted
accused-appellant Deshraj and Ram Sajeevan for the alleged incident.
The trial Court also acquitted the accused-appellant Deshraj under
Section 302 IPC and 3 of D.P. Act. Aggrieved by the above judgment
and order of conviction and sentence, accused-appellant Deshraj and
Ram Sajeevan have preferred this criminal appeal in this Court.
12. We have heard learned counsel for the accused-appellants and
learned AGA for the State-respondent. We have also perused all the
evidence and have also gone through the impugned judgment and order
of conviction as delivered by the trial Court dated 25.08.2021.
13. Learned counsel for the accused-appellant have submitted that the
sentence awarded to the appellants is too severe and not in accordance
with law and further the Court below has awarded punishment against
the material evidence available on record.
14. Appellant No.1 is the husband and the appellant No.2 is father-in-
law of the deceased Savita against whom and other family members a
general allegation of demand of additional dowry of Rs. 5,00,000/- has
been levelled and further the appellants have not caused murder of
deceased as alleged in the First Information Report. It is also submitted
that the incident is said to have occurred on 28.04.2016 and it is an
admitted case of the informant that on the information she has reached at
the spot on the same day and the F.I.R. has been lodged by her on
01.05.2016, we do not find that why between 28.04.2016 to 01.05.2016
at about 13:40 pm, no FIR has been lodged by her. It is also argued by

7
CRLA No. - 4008 of 2021
the learned counsel for the accused-appellants that at the time of alleged
incident, the father of the deceased was already present in the house of
the deceased, but he never lodged any F.I.R., in pursuance of the alleged
incident. The informant Smt. Sitapati Devi, who was wife of Harilal was
examined as PW-1 before the trial Court, but she could not give
explanation for lodging the delayed F.I.R. It is also submitted on behalf
of the accused-appellant that father of the deceased, who was present at
the time of the incident, had already submitted an application before the
police, in which he had stated that his daughter Smt. Savita had died on
account of committing suicide by hanging. There is no evidence before
the trial Court which may say the involvement of the applicants in
commission of alleged offence has come, even though the trial Court has
convicted and sentenced the appellants for maximum period of life
imprisonment and total fine of Rs.10,000/- which is not sustainable in
the eyes of the law. It is also submitted that trial Court awarded
maximum punishment of life imprisonment to accused-appellant without
considering and keeping in mind the socio-economic condition and
family background of the prosecution and defence side. From the
evidence of prosecution, it is revealed that accused-appellant persons are
very poor and father of the accused-appellant Ram Sajeevan is a very old
and poor man. He earns his livelihood for his family by pulling rickshaw
trolley. However, in respect of these facts and circumstances of the case,
the trial Court without keeping this fact in mind awarded maximum
punishment of life imprisonment to accused-appellant, which is against
the settled principles of law. When in the law, under Section 304B IPC,
minimum punishment of seven years imprisonment has been provided,
then in this condition without assigning any reason and not considering
the socio-economic condition of the accused-appellants, a conviction for
life imprisonment for accused-appellant is too harsh and severe, which is
not sustainable in the eye of the law. In this way, learned counsel for the
accused-appellants has submitted that judgment and order of conviction
and sentence as awarded by the learned trial Court is too severe and
excessive as alleged against the accused-appellant persons. Thus, learned

8
CRLA No. - 4008 of 2021
counsel for the appellants submitted that the judgment and order of
conviction as passed by the trial Court is not sustainable in the eye of
law, hence liable to be set aside.
15. Against the above argument of the learned counsel for the
accused-appellants, learned AGA for the State-respondents has
submitted that trial Court after perusing and examining all the
documentary and oral evidence, as available on the record, has passed a
perfect and judicious order in the light of the evidence in the case. The
trial Court found that it is a dowry death case, which happened in the
matrimonial home of the deceased Savita. Postmortem report indicated
death by strangulation. In view of the above facts, the trial Court
sentenced and convicted the accused-appellants for life imprisonment so
that after giving reasonable finding found that a message can be given
to the society that no other person could dare to commit this kind of
heinous offence, like dowry death. It is also submitted by learned AGA
for the State-respondent that the reasoning of the trial Court is supported
by the evidence oral and documentary, there is no any perversity and
illegality in the findings and reasoning of the trial Court in the judgment
and order of conviction dated 25.08.2021. The Criminal Appeal as
preferred by the accused-appellants is devoid of merit, hence liable to be
dismissed.
16. In the light of the above arguments and counter arguments of
learned counsel for the accused-appellants and learned AGA on behalf of
the State-respondents, we have gone through all prosecution evidence as
available on the records. The informant Smt. Sitapati Devi PW-1 has
stated in her examination-in-chief that the deceased Savita was my
th
daughter; I have married her on 11 June, 2014 with Deshraj. Accused
Ram Sajeevan is the father-in-law, Pappu is (Nandoi) and Lalita is
(Nanad). These all peoples live together at Daskuan, Naubasta in own
house. After marriage, my daughter had gone to Naubasta at Kanpur.
About five days after marriage, my daughter returned to my home
(Maika) then she told that my in-laws are not happy with dowry which
you have given to them at the time of marriage; I have given in dowry

9
CRLA No. - 4008 of 2021
one passion pro-motorcycle, gold ring, almirah, bed, utensils charpai and
Rs. 20,000/- cash; My son had told me that these all peoples are not
satisfied with the above dowry and demanding Rs.5,00,000/- as
additional dowry; I have expressed my inability in giving Rs.5,00,000/-
because I have no worth of that kind; I have persuaded my daughter
Savita and send her with her husband at matrimonial home. After
marriage, before her death she came five times at her maika and she had
told that all the accused persons had been demanding Rs.5,00,000/- and
in case of refusal, they are beating and committing cruelty; the informant
Smt. Sitapati Devi PW-1 further stated in her examination-in-chief that
they had not give food to her and pouring kerosene oil upon her and tried
to kill her. Before one month of the current festival of Holi Savita had
told that above four accused persons are demanding Rs.5,00,000/- and
they are beating and committing cruelty. On 28.04.2016, at about 01:00
p.m. in noon accused Pappu (Nandoi) had made a telephonic call that
your daughter has died; after this, all of us reached at the house of my
daughter Savita; my daughter was not there. This came to knowledge
from neighbours that my daughter had been taken to Hallet Hospital,
Kanpur; after that we all reached at Hallet Hospital, there we saw the
dead body; there was injury in the neck of the dead body; sign of injury
was also on her face, eyes and back side of the head; dead body of my
daughter was packed in the hospital; postmortem was conducted on the
same day; after postmortem, the dead body of my daughter was handed
over to us at 4:10 pm; after postmortem, Deshraj had performed rituals
of cremation; we all of us had participated in these rituals; after that on
30.04.2016, I got typed an application in Kutchery.
17. The informant Sitapati Devi PW-1 has stated in her cross-
examination that my daughter had one daughter, her name was Kritika;
when my daughter had died then Kritika was of eight months. At that
time, daughter of my deceased daughter is with his father in jail; at that
time the girl had came from jail; her father is nourishing her; her
Mundan ceremony was performed one day before the incident; my
husband had participated in the Mundan ceremony; we all of us were in

10
CRLA No. - 4008 of 2021
Delhi at that time; we live at Delhi in a rented house; address is not
correctly remembered; my husband do daily labour work; I live at my
house; in Mundan ceremony, my sons had came before two days; after
Mundan ceremony my husband halted and sons had returned back; at the
day of incident, my husband was in Kanpur; I after marriage had only
one time had gone to matrimonial home of my daughter then I had seen
her house; in the main house of the door there is a wooden tattar, one
room of Zhuggi; all of these peoples had been living in the above
Zhuggi. Ram Sajeevan father of Deshraj was a rickshaw puller. His son
Deshraj does not do anything.
18. In her cross-examination, she further stated that at 09:00 am in the
morning, we reached at Kanpur; we reached at the home of my daughter.
There was no person except the neighbours meet; they told that dead
body of the girl is in Hallet Hospital. The neighbours told only that dead
body of my daughter is in the hospital; we have straight forward gone to
Hallet Hospital. In hospital, my daughter was found dead. Police had
taken to my husband for three days; he was locked behind the bar in the
Police Station; I had stayed at the home of my Nanad. Next day
morning I came to Kutchery; I had got typed an application by
typewriter. At that time, my brother had came with me in Kutchery; I had
not written my application; she further stated that when my husband was
locked in police station then none had gone to meet him; my son and
brother had not gone at police station; my husband earned 200 to 300 Rs.
daily; we both people had same socio-economic status.
19. Apart from informant Smt. Sitapati Devi PW-1, other prosecution
witnesses of the fact such as Dinesh Kumar PW-2, Anil Kumar PW-3,
have stated and narrated the same thing and facts in their evidence in the
Court as was stated by their mother informant Sitapati Devi PW-1 in her
evidence.
20. From a perusal of the evidence of the above witnesses of fact,
such as informant Sitapati Devi PW-1, Dinesh Kumar PW-2 and Anil
Kumar PW-3, we find that general allegations regarding demand of
additional dowry and cruelty are levelled by the above prosecution

11
CRLA No. - 4008 of 2021
witnesses against accused-appellants. No specific statement or any other
evidence has been adduced by the prosecution from which it could be
revealed that in what way and manner father-in-law (Sasur) appellant
Ram Sajeevan had committed cruelty to her deceased daughter-in-law
Savita and demanded Rs.5,00,000/- From the perusal of the evidence of
the above prosecution witness, it is also revealed that general allegations
against accused-appellant persons including accused appellant Ram
Sajeevan are levelled by the said prosecution witness. The deceased
Savita was married to accused-appellant Deshraj. This fact is clearly
emerged from the prosecution evidence that, accused-appellant Ram
Sajeevan father of the accused-appellant Deshraj is a very poor person.
He earn his livelihood and nourishing the family by pulling rickshaw
trolley. A person who earns his livelihood by pulling rickshaw trolley,
naturally leave home in the morning and will return at his home in the
late evening. Since the above prosecution witnesses clearly accepted in
their evidence that Ram Sajeevan father of accused-appellant Deshraj
was a rickshaw puller and is maintaining his family by pulling rickshaw
trolley, then in this condition we find that involvement of the accused-
appellant Ram Sajeevan is falsely concocted by the prosecution side to
harass the whole family of the defence side. From the perusal of the
evidence of the above prosecution witness, we find that involvement of
the accused-appellant Ram Sajeevan in the alleged crime is doubtful and
suspicious. However, when we perused the finding and reasoning of the
learned trial Court in this respect, we find that trial Court has not
considered this material aspect in its judgment and order of conviction
and sentence dated 25.08.2021.
21. The trial Court only on the basis of the general allegations against
all the family members of the deceased Savita’s matrimonial home held
guilty and convicted Ram Sajeevan for the alleged crime, which we find
not supported by any cogent evidence on the record. It is settled
principles of law that no accused person can be held guilty for heinous
crime only on general allegations without supported by any cogent and
reliable evidence. Thus, from the above discussions, we are of the

12
CRLA No. - 4008 of 2021
considered view that the judgment and order of conviction passed by the
trial Court in respect of the accused-appellant Ram Sajeevan is not
judicious and proper, hence nor sustainable in the eye of the law.
22. As far as accused-appellant Deshraj is concerned, from the perusal
of the evidence of the prosecution witnesses, such as informant Smt.
Sitapati Devi PW-1, Dinesh Kumar PW-2, Anil Kumar PW-3, this fact
emerges that accused-appellant Deshraj live in a hut of Zhuggi made up
of mud having a gate of tatter. It is also clear from the prosecution
evidence that socio-economic condition of the prosecution side and
accused-appellants are same, meaning thereby that socio-economic
condition of both the sides are same. Both sides are daily wage earner
peoples. They did daily labour work and earn their livelihood for their
family members. It is thus clear that both sides are people of low strata,
they go daily for work on daily basis and earn by doing labour work for
their livelihood for maintaining their family members. This is also clear
from the prosecution evidence as stated by informant Smt. Sitapati Devi
PW-1, Dinesh Kumar PW-2 and Anil Kumar PW-3 that when these
prosecution witnesses have reached at the house of the deceased Savita,
they did not found her at her home.
23. She was taken to the Hallet Hospital by the accused persons. This
fact indicate that after so called incident it was the accused-appellant
persons who carried deceased Savita to the hospital for her treatment
but unfortunately life of Savita could no be saved by the treatment. This
fact also emerges that after death of the deceased Savita in Hallet
Hospital, last cremation rituals were performed by her husband accused-
appellant Deshraj. From the prosecution evidence this fact also emerges
that Kritika-daughter of the deceased Savita, who was eight months old,
was living with her father Deshraj accused-appellant in jail. The
accused-appellant Deshraj nourishing and maintaining her daughter
Kritika in jail after the death of deceased Savita. It is also a fact that
husband of informant Sitapati Devi PW-1, do the labour work and earn
daily 200 to 300 rupees per day.

13
CRLA No. - 4008 of 2021
24. Thus, from above facts, it is clearly emerges that socio-economic
condition of both sides are the same. Both sides are very poor people of
low strata earning their livelihood by doing daily labour work for
maintaining their family members. However, when we have gone
through the findings and reasoning recorded by the learned trial Court,
we find that learned trial Court has not considered this major aspect in
the judgment and order of conviction and sentence in this respect.
Without keeping in view the socio-economic condition of the accused-
appellant persons and prosecution side, trial Court sentenced accused-
appellant persons to the maximum sentence of life imprisonment under
Section 304B IPC. Under Section 304B of IPC, minimum sentence of
seven years imprisonment is provided. The trial Court without
considering this major and material aspect and totality of the fact and
circumstances of the case, awarded a very severe and disproportionate
punishment of life imprisonment to accused-appellant persons.
25. From the records of the file, it appears that families of the
informant and accused-appellant belongs to the weaker section of the
society, earning their livelihood by doing labour work on daily basis. It
is settled principle of law that punishment should be of the nature and
extent that it must not be too lenient and also must not be too severe and
harsh. Both sides belong to weaker sections of the society and are daily
wage earner. In view of the above social condition and economic
capacity of the accused-appellants as well as also of the prosecution
sides, we find that life imprisonment under Section 304B IPC as
awarded by learned Trial Court is too harsh and severe.
26. The Three Judges Bench of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of
Hem Chand v. State of Haryana, (1994) 6 SCC 727, which was also a
case under Section 304B IPC (dowry death), held in para 7 that;
“A reading of Section 304-B IPC would show that when a
question arises whether a person has committed the offence of
dowry death of a woman what all that is necessary is it should be
shown that soon before her unnatural death, which took place
within seven years of the marriage, the deceased had been
subjected, by such person, to cruelty or harassment for or in
connection with demand for dowry. If that is shown then the court
shall presume that such a person has caused the dowry death.

14
CRLA No. - 4008 of 2021
Likewise there is a presumption under Section 113-B of the
Evidence Act as to the dowry death. Practically this is the
presumption that has been incorporated in Section 304-B IPC
also. It can, therefore, be seen that irrespective of the fact whether
the accused has any direct connection with the death or not, he
shall be presumed to have committed the dowry death provided
the other requirements mentioned in the section are satisfied. In
the instant case the prosecution has proved that the deceased died
an unnatural death, but there is no direct evidence connecting the
accused with the death. The accused has not been charged under
Section 302 IPC. Therefore at the most it can be said that the
prosecution proved that it was an unnatural death in which case
also Section 304-B IPC would be attracted. But this aspect i.e.,
absence of direct connection of the accused with death has
certainly to be taken into consideration in balancing the sentence
to be awarded to the accused.
Section 304-B IPC only raises presumption and lays down
that minimum sentence should be seven years but it may extend to
imprisonment for life. Therefore awarding extreme punishment of
imprisonment for life should be in rare cases and not in every
case.”
27. Thus, from the above case law of Hon’ble Supreme Court, it is
clear that under Section 304B IPC for dowry death, life imprisonment
should be awarded in rarest of the rare cases, where it is alleged that
bride was killed in a brutal and ruthless manner and also where there is
no mitigating circumstances, then in this condition, life imprisonment
should be awarded as a rarest of the rare cases. However, the trial Court
also held the accused-appellants guilty under Section 4 of Dowry
Prohibition Act and convicted them for two years imprisonment and a
fine of Rs. 10,000/- to each accused and in default of payment of fine,
both the accused-appellants were directed to undergo further
imprisonment for three months. The accused-appellants were also
convicted under Section 498A IPC for two years simple imprisonment
and a fine of Rs.5,000/- each and in default of payment of fine, they
were ordered to serve one month of additional imprisonment.
28. At this stage, it is also noteworthy to mention here that Harilal
CW-1, who is the father of deceased Savita has also given an
information to the concerned police station of this incident that his
daughter Savita had committed suicide in her matrimonial home. The
prosecution witness Ashok Tiwari PW-6 who was Head Moharrir at

15
CRLA No. - 4008 of 2021
police station Naubasta on 01.05.2016 have stated in his cross-
examination that one fauti information about committing of suicide by
his daughter Savita was given at police station Naubasta. This
information was recorded in the G.D No.48 dated 28.04.2016 at 22:00
pm., meaning thereby that after the incident Harilal CW-1 father of the
deceased Savita has given fauti information about her daughter stating
that her daughter Savita has committed suicide. After this Sitapati Devi
PW-1, mother of deceased Savita came to surface and got typed a written
report in Kutchery on 30.04.2016 and on the basis of a typed application
dated 30.04.2016, the first information report exhibit Ka-9 was
registered against accused appellant persons on 01.05.2016.
29. Only on this ground that accused-appellant Ram Sajeevan father
of the accused-appellant Deshraj against which only general allegation
has been levelled by the prosecution regarding demand of additional
dowry and committing of cruelty, we cannot hold guilty to accused-Ram
Sajeevan for the alleged commission of the crime. Only on this ground
that accused-appellant Ram Sajeevan is father-in-law of the deceased
and he is father of the accused-appellant Deshraj, Ram Sajeevan could
not be held guilty for the alleged crime. For recording a finding of guilty,
cogent and consistent reasons and also evidence must be adduced by the
prosecution. We find that no any cogent and consistent evidence is
present in this case against the accused-appellant Ram Sajeevan for the
alleged commission of the crime except general allegations.
30. In view of the above discussions, facts and circumstances of the
case, conviction and sentence awarded by the trial Court against
accused-appellant Ram Sajeevan is not sustainable in the eyes of the law
and, therefore, liable to be set aside.
31. We are of the considered view that quantum of punishment should
be proportionate to the crime. It should neither be too lenient nor too
excessive and harsh. While awarding sentence, the Court must take an
overall view of the facts and circumstances of the case, including the
socio-economic conditions of both the parties, so as to meet the ends of
justice and convey a clear message to society that no person could dare

16
CRLA No. - 4008 of 2021
to commit any heinous crime. In view of the above facts and
circumstances of the case, as revealed from the records, we are inclined
to sustain the order of conviction only against accused-appellant Deshraj
and maintaining the finding and reasoning in this respect. However, we
are inclined to reduce the sentence from life imprisonment to the period
already undergone by the accused-appellants Deshraj, without altering
the finding of the trial Court in respect of accused-appellant Deshraj. The
finding as given by the learned trial Court in respect of conviction and
sentence against accused-appellant Ram Sajeevan is not sustainable in
the eye of the law, hence we are inclined to set aside the finding and
reasoning of conviction and sentence against the accused-appellant Ram
Sajeevan by the trial Court.
32. In the light of the above discussion, we are of the considered view
that the ends of justice would meet by reducing the sentence of life
imprisonment, as awarded by the trial Court against accused-appellant
Deshraj, to imprisonment for a period of ten years. Thus, we reduce the
life imprisonment against accused-appellant Deshraj awarded by the
trial Court to the imprisonment for ten years only.
33. In the light of the above discussion, we set aside the judgment and
order of conviction and sentence against accused-appellant Ram
Sajeevan.
34. The accused-appellant Deshraj is in jail since 2016 and serving the
sentence, meaning thereby that accused-appellant Deshraj had already
served more than 9 years in jail, hence we reduced the sentence of
accused-appellant Deshraj for ten years imprisonment. Thus, the
criminal appeal filed by the accused-appellant is liable to be partly
allowed.
35. Accordingly, the appeal is partly allowed. The judgment and order
of conviction and sentence awarded by the trial Court against accused-
appellant Ram Sajeevan is, accordingly, set aside. It is directed that the
appellant be released forthwith, if not warranted in any other case and
also subject to the compliance of Section 437A Cr.P.C.

17
CRLA No. - 4008 of 2021
36. The sentence of life imprisonment under Section 304B IPC as
awarded by the learned trial Court to accused-appellant Deshraj is
reduced to the period of ten years imprisonment. After completing of the
sentence of ten years of imprisonment, the accused-appellant Deshraj
shall be released from jail.
37. Let the trial Court record be returned by the office along with the
copy of this judgment for necessary information and compliance
forthwith. This order shall also be sent to the jail authorities concerned
for necessary compliance forthwith.
(Vinai Kumar Dwivedi,J.) (J.J. Munir,J.)
July 01,2026
NSC
Digitally signed by :-
NARENDRA SINGH CHAUDHARY
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad