# Chandra Pal @ Rachit v. State of U.P

- **Citation:** (2025) 11 ILRA 180
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2025-11-10
- **Case number:** Jail Appeal No. 2708 of 2012
- **Bench:** Rajiv Gupta, Samit Gopal
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/chandra-pal-rachit-v-state-of-u-p-54853
- **Pages:** 39

## Headnote

A.G.A.

Issue for consideration
Matter pertains to principles of sentencing.

Headnotes
Four persons named as accused in the FIR- out
of whom jeth and jethani were exonerated
during investigation -Applicants husband and
mother in law of the deceased put to trial -
convicted-accused appellant was not convicted
under Section 302 I.P.C.-was the alternative
charge - found guilty for an offence under
Section 304-B I.P.C.- the charge under Section
302 I.P.C. would become redundant and thus
proceeded-appellant is in jail since about 14
years of imprisonment -a sentence of 10 years
under Section 304-B I.P.C. appropriate - life
imprisonment is reduced to the period of 10
years
rigorous
imprisonment-
no
specific
allegation against mother in law-no overt act
assigned to her-her appeal allowed-conviction
set aside. Appeals allowed and partly
allowed respectively. (E-9)

Case Law Cited

## Text

_Characters 0–39,998 of 136,243. This is a partial read: ask again with offset=39998 for what follows._

180 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
prosecution case as per the F.I.R. When the
injured and first informant were returning from
the house of Executive Engineer (PWD),
incident of altercation as well as firing were
taken place. Whereas PW-2 firstly, in his chief
examination stated that prior to reaching the
house of Executive Engineer (PWD), scooter
was punctured and incident of altercation was
taken place and when he was returning from
the PWD office, the incident was taken place
whereas in his cross examination, he stated that
he had not reached the house of Executive
Engineer and on the way to house of Executive
Engineer, his scooter was punctured and
incident of altercation as well as firing were
taken place;

(d) In the first information report
(Ex-Ka-9), there is a genesis that they brought
the punctured scooter to the shop of Munna
Mistri where incident of fire shot was taken
place whereas Mohd. Sharique (PW-2/injured)
stated that he brought the wheel of punctured
scooter for repairing and he had not brought
the whole scooter. The incident of fire shot was
taken place when he was fitting the wheel in the
scooter;

(e) As per genesis of F.I.R., the
incident took place at the shop of Munna Mistri
whereas PW-2 stated in his cross-examination
that the incident was taken place at the time of
fitting wheel in the scooter; where scooter was
punctured;

(f) As per PW-2 as stated in his chief
examination prior to main incident of fire shot,
he was returning from the house of Executive
Engineer; whereas in his cross-examination he
stated that he had not reached the house of the
Executive Engineer on that day.

26. On the basis of the facts and
circumstances discussed above, an inference
can easily be drawn that the prosecution has not
proved its case beyond reasonable doubt. The
contrary view taken by the trial court is against
the weight of evidence.

27. For all the reasons recorded and
discussed above, I am of the considered view
that the prosecution has failed to prove the
charges for the offence punishable under
Section 307 of I.P.C. against the appellant
beyond reasonable doubt as the evidence on
record does not bring home the guilt of the
appellant beyond the pale of doubt, the
appellant is entitled to the benefit of doubt.
Consequently, the appellant is entitled to be
acquitted of the charge for which he was tried.

28. As a result, present criminal appeal is
allowed. The impugned judgment and order of
conviction dated 05.08.1986 as well as sentence
recorded by the trial court is set aside. The appellant
is acquitted of the charge under section 307 of
I.P.C. for which he has been tried. The appellant is
on bail, therefore, his personal bonds and sureties
are, hereby, discharged. The appellant will fulfill the
requirement of Section 437-A, Cr.P.C. to the
satisfaction of the trial court at the earliest.

29. The trial court records be returned
forthwith with a certified copy of this
judgment for compliance. The office is
further directed to enter the judgment in
compliance register maintained for the
purpose of the Court.
----------
(2025) 11 ILRA 180
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 10.11.2025

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE RAJIV GUPTA, J.
THE HON'BLE SAMIT GOPAL, J.

Jail Appeal No. 2708 of 2012
Connected with Criminal Appeal No. 1574 of
2012

Chandra Pal @ Rachit ...Appellant
Versus
State of U.P. ...Respondent
11 All. Chandra Pal @ Rachit Vs. State of U.P.
181
Counsel for the Appellants:
A.K. Rai, Amit Kumar Gaur, Araf Khan,
Ashwini Kumar Ojha, Karmendra Kumar,
Lihazur Rahman Khan, Mangla Prasad,
Mohd Umar Khan, Ravindra Nath Rai,
Ravindra Pratap Singh

Counsel for the Respondents:
A.G.A.

Issue for consideration
Matter pertains to principles of sentencing.

Headnotes
Four persons named as accused in the FIR- out
of whom jeth and jethani were exonerated
during investigation -Applicants husband and
mother in law of the deceased put to trial -
convicted-accused appellant was not convicted
under Section 302 I.P.C.-was the alternative
charge - found guilty for an offence under
Section 304-B I.P.C.- the charge under Section
302 I.P.C. would become redundant and thus
proceeded-appellant is in jail since about 14
years of imprisonment -a sentence of 10 years
under Section 304-B I.P.C. appropriate - life
imprisonment is reduced to the period of 10
years
rigorous
imprisonment-
no
specific
allegation against mother in law-no overt act
assigned to her-her appeal allowed-conviction
set aside. Appeals allowed and partly
allowed respectively. (E-9)

Case Law Cited
1. Nadeem Vs. State of U.P. : Criminal Appeal
No. 580 of 2019 : 2025:AHC:135692-DB
2. P. Rathinam Vs. Union of India : (1994) 3 SCC
394
3. Sunil Dutt Sharma Vs. State (Govt. of NCT of
Delhi) : (2014) 4 SCC 375
4. Geddam Jhansi vs. The State of Telangana :
Special Leave Petition (Criminal) No. 428 of
2024 decided on 07.02.2025 : 2025 INSC 160
5. Kahkashan Kausar v. State of Bihar : (2022) 6
SCC 599
6. Payal Sharma v. State of Punjab and another
: 2024 SCC OnLine SC 3473
7. Dara Lakshmi Narayana and others v. State of
Telangana and another : 2024 SCC OnLine SC
3682

List of Acts
Indian Penal Code, 1860

List of Keywords
General and omnibus allegations, exaggeration
of versions in matrimonial disputes

Appearances of parties
Counsel for appellant(s) : A.K. Rai, Amit Kumar
Gaur,
Araf
Khan,
Ashwini
Kumar
Ojha,
Karmendra Kumar, Lihazur Rahman Khan,
Mangla Prasad, Mohd Umar Khan, Ravindra
Nath Rai, Ravindra Pratap Singh Counsel for
Respondent(s) : A.G.A.

(Delivered by Hon'ble Samit Gopal, J.)

1. Four persons namely Chandra Pal
@ Rachit, Smt. Atarkali, Bablu (jeth) and
Smt. Sharda (jethani) were named as
accused in the FIR out of whom Bablu
(jeth) and Smt. Sharda (jethani) were
exonerated during investigation and thus
Chandra Pal @ Rachit and Smt. Atarkali
were only put to trial who were convicted
by the trial court. Both the convicted
accused Chandra Pal @ Rachit and Smt.
Atarkali preferred jail appeals before this
Court. A represented appeal was filed by
Atarkali before this Court which is
numbered as Criminal Appeal No. 1574 of
2012. The jail appeal preferred by Chandra
Pal @ Rachit was numbered as Jail Appeal
No. 2708 of 2012. The represented appeal
of appellant Atarkali was admitted vide
order dated 20.12.2012 whereas the jail
appeal of accused Chandra Pal @ Rachit
was admitted vide order dated 19.07.2012.
The aforesaid appeals have been preferred
against the judgment and order dated
28.03.2012 passed by Additional District
and Sessions Judge (T) Court No.4,
Ghaziabad in Session Trial No. 897 of
2011 (State of U.P. Vs. Chandra Pal @
Rachit and another) whereby the accused
Chandra Pal was convicted and sentenced
under Section 498-A IPC to two years R.I.,
fine of Rs. 1000/- and in default of payment
182 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
of
fine
to
one
month
additional
imprisonment, under Section 304-B IPC to
life imprisonment, fine of Rs. 20,000/- and
in default of payment of fine to two years
additional imprisonment, under Section 4
of the Dowry Prohibition Act for one year
imprisonment, fine of Rs. 1000/- and in
default of payment of fine to one month
additional imprisonment. The sentences
were ordered to run concurrently. The
accused
Atarkali
was
convicted
and
sentenced under Section 498-A IPC to two
years R.I., fine of Rs. 1000/- and in default
of payment of fine to one month additional
imprisonment, under Section 304-B IPC to
ten years imprisonment, fine of Rs.
20,000/- and in default of payment of fine
to
two
years
further
additional
imprisonment, under Section 4 of the
Dowry Prohibition Act to one year
imprisonment, fine of Rs. 1000/- and in
default of payment of fine to one month
additional imprisonment. All the sentences
were also directed to run concurrently. It
was further ordered that out of fine as
imposed after the period of appeal, half of
the said amount would be paid to the
children of the deceased as per rules.
Further it was ordered that benefit of set off
of the period already undergone by the
accused shall be given to them.

2. The present case started on an
application dated 12.03.2011 given by
Ramesh Chandra to the In-charge, P.S.
Masoori, District Ghaziabad of which
Prince son of Vivek Kumar was the
scribe alleging therein that on 11.10.2010
he had married his daughter Jyoti as per
rites and rituals and given gifts of Rs.
2,40,000/-. After marriage his daughter
was being abused which was told by her
on telephone and she informed him that
her in-laws are demanding dowry and
stating that she may bring Rs. 2 lakh from
her maternal house for purchase of a plot.
She told them that it is not possible for
her parents to arrange for the said amount
on which her husband started assaulting
her and continued his demand. On her
informing her family members, they went
to her matrimonial house where they were
also abused and assaulted and a demand of
Rs. 2 lakh was raised before them and it
was stated that if it is not fulfilled then his
daughter
would
be
murdered.
On
12.03.2011 he received an information on
phone that his daughter has died. He went
to the said place and did not find her
husband, mother-in-law, jeth and jethani
there who had committed the said offence.
Their names are Chandra Pal @ Rachit,
Atarkali (mother-in-law), Bablu (jeth) and
Sharda (jethani), the said application is
Exb: Ka-1 to the records.

3. On the basis of the said application,
a First Information Report was transcribed
on 12.03.2011 at about 14:10 hours at
Police Station Masoori, District Ghaziabad
as Case Crime No. 165 of 2011, under
Sections 498-A, 504, 304-B IPC and 3/4
Dowry Prohibition Act against Chandra Pal
@ Rachit, Atarkali (mother-in-law), Bablu
(jeth) and jethani Sharda. The Chik FIR is
Exb: Ka-2 to the records.

4. The investigation in the matter
started and inquest on the body of the
deceased was conducted on 12.03.2011, the
same is Exb: Ka-4 to the records.

5. The postmortem of the deceased
Smt. Jyoti was conducted on 13.03.2011 at
about 01:00 pm by Dr. Ajay Agrawal. The
doctor found the following injuries on her
body:

1. Ligature mark 30cm x 0.5cm
all around neck 8cm from right ear 7cm
11 All. Chandra Pal @ Rachit Vs. State of U.P.
183
from left ear, 10cm from chin, ecchymosis
present.

2. Contusion 5cm x 2cm just
below chin.

3. Contusion 2cm x 1cm on left
deltoid region."

The cause of death was opined as
asphyxia due to antemortem strangulation. The
postmortem report is Exb: Ka-3 to the records.

6. A recovery memo dated 12.03.2011
was prepared by the police with regards to
the recovery of two chunaris which were
having a knot in them which is stated to be
the cloth by which the deceased was hung.
The said recovery memo is Exb: Ka-11 to
the records.

7. The investigation concluded and a
charge sheet No. 144 of 2011 dated
24.05.2011, under Sections 498-A, 304-B, 504
IPC and 3⁄4 D.P. Act was submitted against
Chandra Pal @ Rachit and Atarkali. In so far
as two other co-accused persons named in the
FIR namely Bablu (jeth) and Sharda (jethani)
are concerned, they were exonerated. The said
charge sheet is Exb: Ka-9 to the records.

8. Cognizance on the same was taken
by the court concerned vide order dated
23.06.2011.

9. Vide order dated 19.08.2011 passed
by the Additional District and Sessions
Judge (T) Court No.4, Ghaziabad charge
under Section 304-B IPC and in the
alternative under Section 302 IPC, 498-A,
504 IPC and 3⁄4 D.P. Act was framed
against two accused persons. The accused
were read over the same who denied the
charges and claimed to be tried.

10. The prosecution in order to prove
its case produced Ramesh Chandra the first
informant as PW-1, Anshu the sister of the
deceased as PW-2, Prince the cousin of the
deceased and scribe of the FIR as PW-3,
Sub-Inspector Vinod Kumar Tripathi who
conducted the inquest as PW-4, Dr. Ajay
Agrawal who conducted the postmortem
examination as PW-5, Head Constable
Hukam Singh who transcribed the Chik
FIR as PW-6, Pyare Lal Maurya the Nayab
Tehsildar who conducted the inquest as
PW-7, Rajesh Bharti the Circle Officer who
was the second Investigating Officer from
28.04.2011 and concluded the investigation
by filing charge sheet as PW-8 and Kapil
Dev Singh the Circle Office who was the
first Investigating Officer as PW-9. The
accused in defence produced two witnesses
namely Mukesh as DW-1 and Devpal as
DW-2.

11. The trial court after considering
the evidence on record came to its
conclusion that the accused are guilty of
offences under Sections 498-A, 304-B IPC
and Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition
Act. Further in so far as the alternative
charge as framed under Section 302 IPC is
concerned, came to its conclusion that since
the accused have been convicted under
Section 304-B IPC the alternative charge
under Section 302 IPC becomes redundant,
it thus convicted the accused-appellants as
above. The present appeal has been thus
filed before this Court.

12. PW-1 Ramesh Chandra is the first
informant and the grandfather of the
deceased who stated that the incident is of
12.03.2011. Jyoti on telephone in the night
of 11.03.2011 told them that she has threat
to her life. At that time her jeth Bablu and
jethani Sharda had come there in the
morning. The first informant and other
persons went to her house where they
found Jyoti to be dead. She was lying on a
184 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
cot. Her marriage was solemnized on
11.10.2011 with Chandra Pal in which gifts
and dowry were given. He has given
around Rs. 40,000/- to her in-laws. Her inlaws were further demanding money as
dowry for purchase of a plot. Jeth, jethani,
mother-in-law and her husband Chandra
Pal used to assault her for dowry. He had
spent around Rs. 2,40,000/- in marriage.
After marriage, the accused persons were
demanding Rs. 2 lakh for purchase of a plot
and all the four accused persons had told
that if the money is not given then Jyoti
would be murdered. It was told by Jyoti to
him. He dictated the report to Prince on
which he may made a signature. The same
is Exb: Ka-1 to the records.

In his cross examination, he states
Omwati mother of Jyoti who is alive lives
in the house. The husband of Omwati was
ill and has died. The marriage of Jyoti with
Chandra Pal is the second marriage. The
first husband of Jyoti died in an accident.
He knows that first wife of Chandra Pal is
no more. The relationship was proposed by
Kiran the sister of Chandra Pal. He has no
land in his name. He has a small house in
which his elder son lives on the top and his
younger daughter-in-law lives on the
ground floor. He is a labourer. He earns Rs.
15,000/- per month and takes care of his
wife. He dictated the report to Prince at the
matrimonial house of Jyoti. He reached
there at about 11:00 am by hiring a vehicle.
He has a mobile phone. Chandra Pal also
keeps a mobile phone. Chandra Pal had
called him. Bablu and Sharda met him at
the place but later he states that they had
run away at the time of incident. They had
come there. He received information about
the death of Jyoti in the morning. He does
not know who informed him. The person
was from outside the house of Chandra Pal.
Ashok had married for the second time
from which Jyoti was born. Anshu is the
daughter of Ashok who is aged about 16-17
years. Chandra Pal had taken Anshu with
him. It is incorrect to state that Chandra Pal
had taken Anshu for roaming around and
after returning back home, he had a fight
with Jyoti and Jyoti committed suicide
because of it. The police prepared papers in
his presence. He was interrogated by the
police. He did not see anyone assaulting
Jyoti. He found her lying on the cot. He had
given Rs. 40,000/- after about 21⁄2 months
of marriage. The said money was taken by
him from someone. It is incorrect to state
that he did not give Rs. 40,000/-. It is
incorrect to state that the accused persons
did not demand dowry from Jyoti. It is
incorrect to state that that accused persons
abused her for dowry and assaulted her.
After two months of marriage, they used to
demand money and the accused had taken
money twice. He was demanding more
money but police was not informed about
it. The in-laws of Jyoti had assaulted her.
Jyoti had shown her injuries but no medical
examination was done. It is incorrect to
state that there was no assault done on Jyoti
due to which no medical examination was
got done. It is further incorrect to state that
there was no demand of dowry and as such
no report was lodged. It is incorrect to state
that he did not get the relationship finalized
and did not give any money. It is incorrect
to state that he is telling a lie.

13. P.W.-2 Anshu is the sister of the
deceased. She states that the incident is of
12.03.2011. On the day of the incident she
was in the house of her sister and had gone
to fetch some articles. On 09.03.2011 she
had gone along with her grandfather to the
house of her sister to give articles of Holi
wherein both the mother and son had clung
her grandfather and stated that there was a
demand of Rs. Two Lakh for purchase of
11 All. Chandra Pal @ Rachit Vs. State of U.P.
185
plot and he may give the money. She
stayed back at her house as her sister
pleaded for her to stay back. Her sister told
her that she has contusions in her legs. She
had contusions on her waist. She stated that
the accused persons have assaulted her. The
accused persons had a fight with her
throughout the whole night. Chandra Pal,
Atarkali, Bablu and Sharda had quarreled
with her. Her sister told her that she may
tell her grandfather that he may take her
back from the said place. She stayed there
for 02 days. The accused persons used to
quarrel with her in front of the witness. On
the day of incident she was at the house of
her sister but for sometime she had gone to
the market to bring some articles. It took
around 30 minutes for her to get the
articles. When she reached home back she
saw her sister lying on a cot and was dead.
She saw her sister covered with a quilt and
all the accused persons told her that they
are going to call a doctor and went away.
She was alone in the house. The neighbours
had collected there. A doctor had come
who declared her dead. She saw injury
mark on her neck. She gave the number of
her grandfather to a neighbour and told him
to inform him after which 5-6 persons came
to the matrimonial house of her sister.
Police had also come. Police did not
interrogate her. The dead body was taken to
the cremation ground and then she came
back to house.

In her cross-examination she states
that she is illiterate. She went there 5-6
days prior to Holi. Her grandfather had
gone with her along with articles. She was
told by her mother to go there. She was not
interrogated by the Investigating Officer or
other police officials. She does not
remember whether the C.O. had recorded
her statement or not. The C.O. did not ask
her age from her. Now she is aged about 15
years. She knows Bablu and Sharda. Police
had enquired from her regarding the
presence of Bablu and Sharda. Bablu and
Sharda were present there. She does not
remember the reason for it. She does not
know why the police has written regarding
absence of Bablu and Sharda. She does not
know that Bablu and Sharda do not live in
village since last six years. She does not
know about directions. She and her
grandfather had gone with articles of Holi.
Police had written that she alone had gone
with the articles which is false. She does
not remember whether she had told the
police that the mother and son had clung
with grandfather and told him as to what he
has done. She does not remember whether
she told the police that her sister with
folded hands requested her to stay back.
She does not remember whether she told
the police that her sister had contusions in
her leg and she was ill due to the same.
After the death of her sister the persons
who had gone from the house included her
grandfather also. She had shown the injury
marks to her grandfather. She had told her
grandfather that Chandra Pal, Atarkali,
Bablu and Sharda had a quarrel with Jyoti
and had assaulted her. She cannot tell the
reason why she did not tell it to the police.
She states that it is incorrect that she is
living at the house of Chandra Pal since last
one month and Chandra Pal used to take
her to roam about. She further states that it
is incorrect that her sister used to fight with
Chandra Pal due to the same. When police
had reached the place she did not show the
injuries to the police. Her family members
had shown it to the police. She had shown
the injuries to her mother and her mother
had shown it to the police. She does not
know whether she told the police that the
doctor declared her dead. The doctor was
called by the neighbours. Chandra Pal and
family members had run away from the
186 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
house. When she had gone to Hasanpur
Chandra Pal, Atarkali and Jyoti were
present there. Jyoti has a son aged about 01
year and she was aged about 20 years. She
does not know whether the wife of Chandra
Pal has died. The husband of Jyoti had
died. She does not know about the
expenses incurred in the marriage of Jyoti.
She did not affix her thumb impression on
any document before the police. She did
not see her sister dying. Chandra Pal used
to assault her earlier. It is incorrect to say
that she is telling a lie. Further it is
incorrect to state that she and Chandra Pal
were having illicit relationship and due to
the same she is not telling the real fact. It is
incorrect that after giving articles of Holi
she returned back to her house and was not
present at the place of occurrence at the
time of incident. It is incorrect that she is a
student of class-11th and is speaking a lie.

14. P.W.-3 Prince is the scribe of the
first information report. He is also the
cousin brother of the deceased. He states
that the incident is of 12.03.2011. Jyoti is
the daughter of his tau. After receiving a
phone call from her matrimonial house he
with his grandfather, father, mother and
people of the locality went to the
matrimonial house of Jyoti. When they
reached there they saw Jyoti lying dead on
a cot. She was married on 11.10.2010 with
Chandra Pal. About Rs. Two lakh Four
thousand was spent in the marriage but still
the in-laws of Jyoti being her mother-inlaw, Chandra Pal the husband used to
assault her and used to demand dowry from
her. When his sister came to Ghaziabad
then she told him about her in-laws fighting
with her and assaulting her and told him
that they are demanding Rs. Two lakh for
purchase of a plot and used to say that
either she may get the money from her
maternal house or else she would be
murdered. The accused Chandra Pal and
Atarkali murdered his sister. He wrote the
report about the incident on the dictation of
his grandfather, the same is already marked
as Exb: Ka-1 to the records. He along with
his grandfather and other persons with the
report had gone to the police station where
a case was registered.

In his cross-examination he states that
the Investigating Officer did not record his
statement. The report was written at
Hasanpur and the paper for it was taken
from the police and he was carrying a pen
with him. He did not write the report on the
saying of the police. After writing the
report it was given to the police in village
Hasanpur. He reached Hasanpur at about
11-12 pm. He is a graduate. They started
from Ghazaibad at about 10-10.30 am. He
has also previously visited the house of
Jyoti. He does not know as to who are the
neighbours of Jyoti. He stayed at Hasanpur
for about one hour. The dead body was
taken to Ghaziabad. Two police constables
went with the dead body. He does not know
whether he had signed any other paper
apart from the application. 8-10 people had
gone from Ghaziabad in a vehicle. He
knows Anshu who is aged about 18 years
but then he states that he does not know
her. Anshu did not go with him. He does
not know that Chandra Pal used to take
Anshu for roaming around and it was the
reason for fight between him and Jyoti. He
states that it is incorrect that due to fight
with Jyoti due to Anshu she committed
suicide. He had written what was dictated
to him by Ramesh. He states that it is
incorrect
that
Chandra
Pal
has
not
murdered her. He states that it is incorrect
that Jyoti committed suicide.

15. P.W.-4 S.I. Vinod Kumar Tripathi
conducted the inquest on the dead body of
11 All. Chandra Pal @ Rachit Vs. State of U.P.
187
the deceased. When he reached the place of
occurrence Naib Tehsildar, P.L. Maurya
was present there and on his directions he
prepared the inquest in front of five
witnesses and got it signed. The dead body
was then sealed and sent for postmortem
examination. C.O. Kapil Dev Singh had
reached the said place and on his directions
he had taken into possession two chunnis
which were tied on the clamp in the room
and prepared the memo of it. The death
appeared due to hanging. There was a blue
injury on the neck and small injury on the
chin.

16. P.W.-5 Dr. Arvind Agarwal
conducted the postmortem examination of
the deceased. The injuries as found by him
have already been noted above. He opined
that the death had occurred around 11⁄2
days before and was due to strangulation.

In his cross-examination he states that
apart from injury on the neck there were
two other injuries on the body of the
deceased.

17. P.W.-6 Head Constable Hukam
Singh had transcribed the chik First
Information Report in the present matter
and had prepared the corresponding GD for
the same, the copies of the same have been
marked as Exb: Ka-2 to the records.

18. P.W.-7 Pyare Lal Maurya is the
Naib Tehsildar. He states of reaching the
place of occurrence and getting the inquest
conducted in his presence after appointing
five witnesses to it.

19. P.W.-8 Rajesh Bharti C.O. is the
second Investigating Officer of the matter. He
took the investigation from Kapil Dev Singh,
C.O. from 28.11.2021. He concluded it and
filed a charge-sheet against Chandra Pal @
Rachit and Atarkali only, the same is Exb:
Ka-9 to the records. He states that in so far as
the accused Bablu and Sharda wife of Bablu
are concerned, the independent witnesses
have stated that they did not live at the place
of occurrence and used to live at another
place. They were exonerated in the matter.

20. P.W.-9 K.D. Singh C.O. is the first
Investigating Officer of the matter. He states
of taking up the investigaiton. He further
states that on 02.04.2011 he transcribed
Parcha no.V of the case-diary in which he
mentioned that on 31.03.2011 the accused
Chandra Pal and Smt. Atarkali surrendered
before the court concerned. He recorded the
statements of the accused. Two chunnis were
taken into possession, the recovery memo of
the same is Exb: Ka-11 to the records. He
states that during investigation he had been
informed that accused Bablu and Sharda did
not reside in village Hasanpur. The said fact
was told by Kumari Anshu the sister of the
deceased.

21. The accused Chandra Pal in his
statement recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C.
on 20.01.2012 denied the prosecution case.
He stated that Anshu had gone with him to
roam about and under misconception the
deceased committed suicide. He further states
that the marriage was second marriage of
himself and the deceased also. No dowry was
taken in it.

22. Smt. Atarkali in her statement
recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. on
20.01.2012 also denied the prosecution
case. She stated that Anshu had gone to
roam about with her son and under some
misconception the deceased committed
suicide.

23. Mukesh was examined as D.W.-1
in the matter from the defence side. He is
188 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
neighbour of the accused. He states that his
house is situated at a distance of about 10
steps from the house of Chandra Pal. He
further states that the sister-in-law of
Chandra Pal had come around 7-8 days
before the incident. There was never any
demand of dowry and the family used to
live together with love. The marriage of
Chandra Pal was a second marriage and
also the marriage of the deceased was
second marriage and no dowry was taken.
Chandra Pal had taken his sister-in-law
twice for roaming around due to which
there was quarrel between him and his
wife. The wife of Chandra Pal had
committed suicide due to her sister. He on
hearing shouts reached the place of
occurrence. Bablu and Sharda had left the
village around 7-8 years back.

24. Devpal was produced as D.W.-2.
He states that the incident is of 11-11.30
am. Chandra Pal and his mother never
demanded any dowry and never used to
indulge in any assault with the deceased.
Bablu and his wife had left the village
around 8-9 years ago and at the time of
incident were not living in the village. He
has a common wall to the house of Chandra
Pal. At the time of incident the sister-in-law
of Chandra Pal had come to the house and
sometimes used to casually stay at the
house of Chandra Pal and sometimes used
to go to her house. Chandra Pal had taken
his sister-in-law to roam about which he
had seen them going once or twice. He had
heard about it also as he had taken his
sister-in-law to roam about. There was
tension between the husband and wife. On
the said night the deceased committed
suicide by hanging and died. He came to
know of it in the morning.

25. Learned counsel for the appellant
raised separate arguments for both the
accused persons. In so far as the
accused/appellant Chandra Pal @ Rachit
the husband of the deceased is concerned it
is submitted that he is in jail since
13.3.2011. It is further submitted that the
only submission with regards to him is the
question of sentence. It is submitted that
conviction of the said accused/appellant is
not being challenged. It is further submitted
that although he is in jail since 13.3.2011
and the submission is only with regards to
the question of sentence, but there shall be
no claim of any compensation with regards
to him for the period he has undergone in
jail till date.

26. Heard Shri Ashwini Kumar Ojha,
learned counsel for the appellant- Chandra
Pal @ Rachit, Shri Ravindra Pratap Singh,
learned counsel for the appellant- Atarkali,
Shri A.N. Mulla and Shri Jitendra Kumar
Jaiswal, learned AGAs for the State and
perused the record.

27. Learned counsel for said appellant
submitted that trial court has awarded
maximum sentence prescribed under law to
him for the convicted offence. It is
submitted that the trial court while
considering the question of sentence has
opined that he is the husband of the
deceased and husband is the custodian of
the wife and marriage was a second
marriage but still he murdered his wife by
strangulation which is a serious offence and
thus there is no possibility of any leniency
being shown to him. It is submitted that the
trial court proceeded to convict him and
awarded the maximum punishment of life
imprisonment for the said offence. It is thus
submitted
that
the
same
is
totally
unwarranted inasmuch as the accusedappellant was not convicted under Section
302 I.P.C. which was the alternative charge
framed against him and the trial court has
11 All. Chandra Pal @ Rachit Vs. State of U.P.
189
held that since he has been found guilty for
an offence under Section 304-B I.P.C., the
charge under Section 302 I.P.C. would
become redundant and thus proceeded to
convict him and sentence him accordingly.
It is submitted that the conviction is
excessive. It is further submitted that at the
time of incident the accused/appellant was
aged about 20 years as would appear from
the fact that his statement under Section
313 Cr.P.C. was recorded on 20.1.2012 in
which he has disclosed his age as 21 years
which was not disputed by the trial court. It
is submitted that while awarding sentence
of life imprisonment there would be no
chance
of
reformation
of
the
said
accused/appellant. It is further submitted
that the sentence as awarded is against the
principles of sentencing and is too severe.
It is submitted that ends of justice would be
served if the sentence as awarded to the
said accused/appellant of life imprisonment
is reduced to a reasonable sentence looking
to the facts of the case.

28.
In
so
far
as
the
other
accused/appellant
Smt.
Atarkali
is
concerned, it is submitted that she is the
mother-in-law of the deceased. It is further
submitted that the F.I.R. in the present
matter goes to show that there is no specific
allegation against her and there is no overt
act assigned to her. It is submitted that in so
far as the allegations in the F.I.R. are
concerned the allegation although is that
the
in-laws
of
the
deceased
were
demanding dowry but there is a specific
allegation that the deceased told the
informant and other family members that
her husband used to assault her and make
demand of dowry. It is submitted that the
said appellant has been made an accused
with general and omnibus allegation. It is
submitted that only because of the reason
that she happens to be the mother-in-law of
the deceased and mother of the husband she
has been made an accused in the present
matter. It is submitted that the fact that
marriage of the deceased with Chandra Pal
@ Rachit is a second marriage is not
disputed. It is submitted that demand of
dowry by the present appellant would be an
improbability. It is submitted that role of
the mother-in-law is identical to that of coaccused Bablu the jeth and Smt. Sharda the
jethani of the deceased who have been
exonerated
by
the
police
during
investigation. It is submitted that thus there
are fair chances of false implication of the
present appellant also. It is submitted that
identical allegations have been levelled
against the appellant Smt. Atarkali as that
of Bablu and Smt. Sharda who have been
exonerated
by
the
police
during
investigation. It is submitted that time and
again the Hon'ble Apex Court and this
Court have held that there is a tendency of
false implication of family members in
matters regarding dowry death with general
and omnibus allegations and benefit has
been extended to them because of the said
reasons and thus the present appellant/Smt.
Atarkali the mother-in-law of the deceased,
also deserves to be acquitted in the present
matter.

29. At the first instance while dealing
with the principles of sentencing of an
accused, it is clarified that the law is trite.
A Division Bench of this Court in Nadeem
Vs. State of U.P. : Criminal Appeal No.
580 of 2019 : 2025:AHC:135692-DB, has
considered the objective of punishment and
the principles of sentencing and has held in
paras- 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31,
32 as under:-

"22. Third, as to objective of
punishment, in Machi Singh & Ors. vs
State of Punjab, (1983) 3 SCC 470,
190 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
observed as below: "The reasons why the
community as a whole does not endorse the
humanistic approach reflected in "death
sentence-in-no-case" doctrine are not far to
seek. In the first place, the very humanistic
edifice is constructed on the foundation of
"reverence for life" principle. When a
member of the community violates this very
principle by killing another member, the
society may not feel itself bound by the
shackles of this doctrine. Secondly, it has to
be realized that every member of the
community is able to live with safety
without his or her own life being
endangered because of the protective arm
of the community and on account of the
rule of law enforced by it. The very
existence of the rule of law and the fear of
being brought to book operates as a
deterrent for those who have no scruples in
killing others if it suits their ends. Every
member of the community owes a debt to
the community for this protection. When
ingratitude is shown instead of gratitude by
"killing" a member of the community which
protects the murderer himself from being
killed, or when the community feels that for
the sake of self-preservation the killer has to
be killed, the community may well withdraw
the protection by sanctioning the death
penalty. But the community will not do so in
every case. It may do so "in rarest of rare
cases" when its collective conscience is so
shocked that it will expect the holders of the
judicial power centre to inflict death penalty
irrespective of their personal opinion as
regards desirability or otherwise of retaining
death penalty. The community may entertain
such a sentiment when the crime is viewed
from the platform of the motive for, or the
manner of commission of the crime, or the
anti-social or abhorrent nature of the crime."

23. In that, it was further
observed that (i) Manner of commission of
murder, (ii) Motive for commission of
murder,
(iii)
Anti-social
or
socially
abhorrent
nature
of
the
crime,(iv)
Magnitude of crime and, (v) Personality of
victim of murder, were relevant factors to
be considered by the courts.

24.
In
Anil
alias
Anthony
Arikswamy
Joseph
vs
State
of
Maharashtra, (2014) 4 SCC 69, the
Supreme
Court
maintained
that
the
probability that the accused would not
commit criminal act of violence as may
constitute the threat to the society, is a
relevant circumstance. It may help the
court to determine if there is no possibility
of reformation and rehabilitation. In that, it
was observed as below:

"In Bachan Singh [Bachan Singh
v. State of Punjab, (1980) 2 SCC 684 :
1980 SCC (Cri) 580] this Court has
categorically stated, "the probability that
the accused would not commit criminal
acts of violence as would constitute a
continuing threat to the society", is a
relevant circumstance, that must be given
great weight in the determination of
sentence. This was further expressed in
Santosh Kumar Satishbhushan Bariyar
[Santosh Kumar Satishbhushan Bariyar v.
State of Maharashtra, (2009) 6 SCC 498 :
(2009) 2 SCC (Cri) 1150]. Many a times,
while determining the sentence, the courts
take it for granted, looking into the facts of
a particular case, that the accused would
be a menace to the society and there is no
possibility
of
reformation
and
rehabilitation, while it is the duty of the
court to ascertain those factors, and the
State is obliged to furnish materials for and
against the possibility of reformation and
rehabilitation of the accused. The facts,
which the courts deal with, in a given case,
cannot be the foundation for reaching such
a conclusion, which, as already stated,
calls
for
additional
materials.
We,
11 All. Chandra Pal @ Rachit Vs. State of U.P.
191
therefore, direct that the criminal courts,
while dealing with the offences like Section
302
IPC,
after
conviction,
may,
in
appropriate cases, call for a report to
determine, whether the accused could be
reformed or rehabilitated, which depends
upon the facts and circumstances of each
case."

(emphasis supplied)

25. Fourth, as to aggravating and
mitigating circumstance to be considered,
to award appropriate punishment, in
Bachan Singh vs State of Punjab, (1980) 2
SCC 684, considering the provisions of
legislative policy that underlines the
structure of our criminal law as contained
in the Indian Penal Code and the Criminal
Procedure Code, the Supreme Court first
observed - it may not be possible to make
an
'exhaustive
enumeration'
of
'aggravating'
and
'mitigating'
circumstances to be considered while
sentencing an offender. At the same time, it
was maintained that a discretion to be
exercised by the judge, judicial, after
balancing of aggravating and mitigating
circumstances of the crime. Considering
the same in the context of capital sentence,
following
pertaining
observations
pertaining came to be made: In that
regard, it was observed as below: