# Dharmendra Singh (In Jail) v. State of U.P. 784 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

- **Citation:** (2023) 2 ILRA 783
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2022-12-13
- **Case number:** Criminal Appeal No. 2203 of 2016
- **Bench:** Dr. Kaushal Jayendra Thaker, Ajai Tyagi
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/dharmendra-singh-in-jail-v-state-of-u-p-784-indian-law-reports-allahabad-series-49215
- **Pages:** 8

## Headnote

Criminal Law - Indian Evidence Act, 1872-
Section
154-Trial
court
has
held
in
impugned judgement that prosecution
could not prove the case for the offences
u/s 498A, 304B IPC and u/s 4 Dowry
Prohibition
Act.
Accused-appellant
is
convicted for the offence u/s 302 IPC on
the basis of alternative charge with the
aid of Section 106 of Indian Evidence Act-
All the witnesses of fact, namely, PW1,
PW2, PW4 and PW5 have turned hostile-
The law regarding the hostility of the
witness is clear that the testimony of any
witness cannot be discarded as a whole on
the basis of hostility.

Settled law that, that part of the testimony of a
hostile witness can be read in evidence which
supports or corroborates the story of the
prosecution.

Criminal Law - Indian Penal Code, 1860-
Section 300- Section 302- Section 304
Part- I- The prosecution witnesses as well
as medical evidences proved that it was a
homicidal death which had occurred due
to asphyxia. The accused though had
knowledge and intention that his act
would cause bodily harm to the deceased
but did not want to do away with the
deceased. Hence the instant case falls
under the Exceptions 1 and 4 to Section
300 of IPC- Above offence committed will
fall under Section 304 Part-I.

Where the death is homicidal but there is no
prior intent or pre-meditation then the offence
will fall under section 304 Part- I of the IPC
instead of section 302 of the IPC.

Quantum of sentence-Proportionality of
Punishment-
The
criminal
justice
jurisprudence adopted in the country is
not
retributive
but
reformative
and
corrective. At the same time, undue
harshness should also be avoided keeping
in
view
the
reformative
approach
underlying in our criminal justice system.
Undue harshness should be avoided taking
into account the reformative approach
underlying in criminal justice system. The
conviction of the appellant and conviction
of appellant is converted from Section 302
IPC into 304 (Part I) IPC and the
appellant
is
awarded
rigorous
imprisonment for 10 years and fine of
Rs.5,000/-.

As the criminal jurisprudence of our Country is
reformative and not retributive hence undue
harshness should be avoided, hence sentence of
the appellant modified accordingly. (Para 11,
12, 15, 16, 17, 21, 22, 23, 24)

Criminal Appeal partly allowed. (E-3)

Case Law/ Judgements relied upon:-

## Text

2 All. Dharmendra Singh Vs. State of U.P.
783
the deceased died on 10.8.1996 due to
septicaemia caused by burn injuries. The
accused was convicted and sentenced for
life imprisonment under Section 302 IPC,
which was confirmed in appeal by the High
Court, but Hon'ble The Apex Court
converted the case under Section 304 PartII IPC on the ground that the death ensued
after twenty-six days of the incident as a
result of septicaemia and not as a
consequence
of
burn
injuries
and,
accordingly, sentenced for seven years'
rigorous imprisonment.

54. In Maniben vs. State of Gujarat
[(2009) 8 SCC 796], the incident took place on
29.11.1984. The deceased died on 7.12.1984.
Cause of death was the burn injuries. The
deceased was admitted in the hospital with
about 60 per cent burn injuries and during the
course of treatment developed septicaemia,
which was the main cause of death of the
deceased. Trial-court convicted the accused
under Section 304 Part-II IPC and sentenced for
five years' imprisonment, but in appeal, High
Court convicted the appellants under Section
302 IPC. Hon'ble The Apex Court has held that
during the aforesaid period of eight days, the
injuries aggravated and worsened to the extent
that it led to ripening of the injuries and the
deceased died due to poisonous effect of the
injuries. Accordingly, judgment and order
convicting the accused under Section 304 PartII IPC by the trial-court was maintained and the
judgment of the High Court was set aside.

55. In the almost similar circumstances,
the conviction of the accused under Section 302
I.P.C. was modified from the rigorous
imprisonment for life to rigorous imprisonment
for 10 years under Section 304 Part I of I.P.C.
by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Pawan Kumar
Vs. State of Uttarakhand (2021) 11 Supreme
Court Cases 53 and we can safely rely upon
that verdict.

56. On the overall scrutiny of the facts
and circumstances of the case, we have come to
the irresistible conclusion with the role of the
appellant that is clear from the dying declaration
and other records and we also keep in mind that
the deceased had survived for 5 days after the
occurrence and ultimately died of septicemia
and that is why we are of the considered
opinion that the conviction of the appellant
under Section 302 I.P.C. is required to be
converted to that under Section 304 Par I of
I.P.C.

57. In view of the above, the appeal is
partly allowed and the sentence of the accused
is reduced to the period of 10 years with
remission. The period already undergone can be
sustained in the full period of incarceration. The
fine is reduced to Rs.10,000/- to be paid to the
original complainant. The default sentence
would be the same and will run after
completion of 10 years of incarceration. The
accused is said to be in jail since 2015 and at
least had suffered for about 7 years of
imprisonment and must have repented to her act
which was out of anger.

58. Record and proceedings be sent back
to the Court below forthwith.
----------

(2023) 2 ILRA 783
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 13.12.2022

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE DR. KAUSHAL JAYENDRA
THAKER, J.
THE HON'BLE AJAI TYAGI, J.

Criminal Appeal No. 2203 of 2016

Dharmendra Singh ...Appellant (In Jail)
Versus
State of U.P. ...Opposite Party
784 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Counsel for the Appellant:
Sri Ram Janam Shahi, Sri Rajesh Kumar
Mishra

Counsel for the Opposite Party:
G.A.

Criminal Law - Indian Evidence Act, 1872-
Section
154-Trial
court
has
held
in
impugned judgement that prosecution
could not prove the case for the offences
u/s 498A, 304B IPC and u/s 4 Dowry
Prohibition
Act.
Accused-appellant
is
convicted for the offence u/s 302 IPC on
the basis of alternative charge with the
aid of Section 106 of Indian Evidence Act-
All the witnesses of fact, namely, PW1,
PW2, PW4 and PW5 have turned hostile-
The law regarding the hostility of the
witness is clear that the testimony of any
witness cannot be discarded as a whole on
the basis of hostility.

Settled law that, that part of the testimony of a
hostile witness can be read in evidence which
supports or corroborates the story of the
prosecution.

Criminal Law - Indian Penal Code, 1860-
Section 300- Section 302- Section 304
Part- I- The prosecution witnesses as well
as medical evidences proved that it was a
homicidal death which had occurred due
to asphyxia. The accused though had
knowledge and intention that his act
would cause bodily harm to the deceased
but did not want to do away with the
deceased. Hence the instant case falls
under the Exceptions 1 and 4 to Section
300 of IPC- Above offence committed will
fall under Section 304 Part-I.

Where the death is homicidal but there is no
prior intent or pre-meditation then the offence
will fall under section 304 Part- I of the IPC
instead of section 302 of the IPC.

Quantum of sentence-Proportionality of
Punishment-
The
criminal
justice
jurisprudence adopted in the country is
not
retributive
but
reformative
and
corrective. At the same time, undue
harshness should also be avoided keeping
in
view
the
reformative
approach
underlying in our criminal justice system.
Undue harshness should be avoided taking
into account the reformative approach
underlying in criminal justice system. The
conviction of the appellant and conviction
of appellant is converted from Section 302
IPC into 304 (Part I) IPC and the
appellant
is
awarded
rigorous
imprisonment for 10 years and fine of
Rs.5,000/-.

As the criminal jurisprudence of our Country is
reformative and not retributive hence undue
harshness should be avoided, hence sentence of
the appellant modified accordingly. (Para 11,
12, 15, 16, 17, 21, 22, 23, 24)

Criminal Appeal partly allowed. (E-3)

Case Law/ Judgements relied upon:-

1. Tukaram & ors. Vs St. of Maha. (2011) 4 SCC 250

2. B.N. Kavatakar & anr. Vs St. of Kar., 1994
SUPP (1) SCC 304

3. Veeran & ors. Vs St. of M.P., (2011) 5 SCR 300

4. Mohd. Giasuddin Vs St. of A.P., AIR 1977 SC 1926

5. Deo Narain Mandal Vs St. of U.P. ,(2004) 7
SCC 257

6. Ravada Sasikala Vs State of A.P. AIR 2017 SC
1166

(Delivered by Hon'ble Ajai Tyagi, J.)

1. By way of this appeal the appellant
Dharmendra Singh has challenged the
judgement and order dated 17.03.2016 and
order dated 18.03.2016 passed by learned
Additional Sessions Judge/ FTC (Women
Criminal Case) Court No.13, Shahjahanpur
in Session Trial No.330 of 2012 (State Vs.
Dharendra Singh & others) arising out of
Case Crime No.175 of 2012, under
Sections 498A, 304B IPC and 3/4 Dowry
2 All. Dharmendra Singh Vs. State of U.P.
785
Prohibition Act, Police Station- Tilhar,
District-
Shahjahanpur,
whereby
accused/appellant
was
convicted
and
sentenced under Section 302 IPC for a
rigorous life imprisonment with the fine of
Rs.20,000/- and in default of payment of
fine, the appellant shall further undergone
for five months simple imprisonment.

2. The brief facts of the case as culled
out from the record are that a first
information report was filed by informant
Dhakan Lal at Police Station- Tilhar,
District- Shahjahanpur with the averments
that the marriage of his daughter, aged 25
years, was solemnized with Dharmendra
before two years, in which he has given
dowry as per his financial condition, but
after marriage Dharmendra and his parents
started
demanding
a
motorcycle
as
additional dowry. Due to non-fulfilment of
the aforesaid demand, they started torturing
his daughter. Today morning, he had
information that Dharmendra and his
parents have killed his daughter for want of
additional dowry. On this information, the
informant went to the matrimonial home of
his daughter and found that his daughter's
dead body was lying on the cot. A Case
Crime No.175 of 2012 was registered at
Police
Station-
Tilhar,
District-
Shahjahanpur u/s 304B, 498A IPC and u/s
3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act.

3. The law set into motion and
investigation started. The dead body of the
deceased was sent to post mortem after
conducting the inquest proceedings. Doctor
conducted the post mortem and prepared
post mortem report. During the course of
investigation, I.O. recorded the statements
of witnesses u/s 161 of Cr.P.C. After
completion of investigation, a charge sheet
was
submitted
against
the
accused
Dharmendra Singh, Mahesh Pal and Smt.
Premwati u/s 304B, 498A IPC and 3/4
Dowry Prohibition Act and in alternative
u/s 302 IPC and further u/s 4 Dowry
Prohibition Act. Accused persons denied
the charges and claimed to be tried.

4. The prosecution examined the
following witnesses:

1
Dhakan Lal
PW1
2
Kalawati
PW2
3
Dr. Manoj Kumar
PW3
4
Komil Prasad
PW4
5
Usha Devi
PW5
6
Jhandu Ram
PW6
7
Bhagwandas
Kathoriya
PW7

5. In support of the ocular version of
the witnesses, following documents were
produced and contents were proved by
leading oral evidence:

1
FIR
Ext. Ka-8
2
Written report
Ext. Ka-1
3
P.M. Report
Ext. Ka-2
4
Panchayatnama
Ext. Ka-3
5
Charge sheet
Ext. Ka-5
6
Site plan
Ext. Ka-7

6. After completion of prosecution
evidence,
the
statements
of
accused
persons, namely, Dharmendra and Smt.
Premwati were recorded under Section 313
Cr.P.C. Accused Mahesh Pal Singh passed
away during the course of trial. No defense
witness was produced by accused persons.

7. Learned trial court after hearing the
both the parties acquitted accused Smt.
Premwati from all the charges levelled
against her and convicted the appellantaccused Dharmendra Singh for alternative
charge u/s 302 IPC and sentenced for life
786 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
imprisonment and fine of Rs.20,000/-.
Hence,
this
appeal
by
appellant-
Dharmendra Singh.

8. Heard Shri Rajesh Kumar Mishra
learned counsel for the appellant, Shri
Patanjali Mishra, learned AGA for the State
and perused the record.

9. Learned counsel for the appellant
first of all submitted that this is a case of no
evidence and appellant has been convicted
without evidence on record. It is further
submitted that witnesses of fact were
examined by prosecution, namely, PW1
Dhakan, who is father of the deceased and
PW2 Smt. Kalawati, who is mother of the
deceased. Both these witnesses have not
supported the prosecution case and they
have turned hostile. Apart from these
witnesses, PW4 Komil Prasad and PW5
Usha Devi are also examined by the
prosecution as witnesses of fact, but they
both have turned hostile and have not
supported the prosecution case. Hence,
there is no evidence on record that any
additional
dowry
was
demanded
by
appellant from the deceased or his parents
and also there is no evidence on record that
the deceased was subjected to cruelty in
connection with demand of additional
dowry. But learned trial court has convicted
the appellant u/s 302 IPC with the aid of
Section 106 of Indian Evidence Act, which
has no applicability in this case because
prosecution has failed to prove that at the
time of alleged occurrence appellant was
inside the house. It is also contended that
learned trial court has also reached to the
conclusion that no offence u/s 498A and
304B IPC is made out against the appellant.

10. Learned AGA opposed the
submissions made by learned counsel for
the appellant and submitted that there is
ample evidence on record that the deceased
was done away by the appellant only. The
appellant is husband of the deceased and
the dead body of the deceased was found in
the house of the appellant. Hence, it was
burden on the shoulders of the appellant to
prove that he has not committed the offence
but he has offered no explanation in this
regard. It is further submitted by learned
AGA that medical evidence corroborates
the prosecution story and the prosecution
witnesses, relating to the fact, have not
supported the case because they were won
over by the appellant. Even then PW1,
father of the deceased, has supported the
prosecution version in his examination-inchief. It was a case of death due to
asphyxia and the learned trial court has
rightly taken the recourse of Section 106 of
Indian Evidence Act. It is proved beyond
reasonable doubt that the death of the
deceased was caused by the appellant and
by none-else. Hence, there is no illegality
or infirmity in the impugned judgement
which calls for any interference by this
Court.

11. It is admitted position on record
that learned trial court has held in
impugned
judgement
that
prosecution
could not prove the case for the offences
u/s 498A, 304B IPC and u/s 4 Dowry
Prohibition
Act.
Accused-appellant
is
convicted for the offence u/s 302 IPC on
the basis of alternative charge with the aid
of Section 106 of Indian Evidence Act.

12. Although, all the witnesses of
fact, namely, PW1, PW2, PW4 and PW5
have turned hostile and have not supported
the prosecution version. In fact PW1, father
of the deceased, has supported the
prosecution version in his examination-inchief but during the course of crossexamination he has resiled from his
2 All. Dharmendra Singh Vs. State of U.P.
787
previous statement and has not supported
the prosecution case. The law regarding the
hostility of the witness is clear that the
testimony of any witness cannot be
discarded as a whole on the basis of
hostility. "Falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus"
is not applicable in India. It is the duty of
the Court to separate the grain from chaff.
Hence, on the basis of evidence on record,
we are of the definite opinion that death of
the deceased was homicidal and we are not
convinced that appellant is innocent. But on
the basis of evidence available on record,
since the demand of additional dowry is not
proved, we have considered the case from
the angle where the death of the deceased
was murder or culpable homicide not
amounting to murder.

13. It would be relevant to refer
Section 299 of the Indian Penal Code,
which read as under:

"299.
Culpable
homicide:
Whoever causes death by doing an act
with the intention of causing death, or
with the intention of causing such bodily
injury as is likely to cause death, or with
the knowledge that he is likely by such
act to cause death, commits the offence of
culpable homicide."

14. The academic distinction between
''murder' and ''culpable homicide not
amounting to murder' has always vexed the
Courts. The confusion is caused, if Courts
losing sight of the true scope and meaning
of the terms used by the legislature in these
sections, allow themselves to be drawn into
minute abstractions. The safest way of
approach
to
the
interpretation
and
application of these provisions seems to be
to keep in focus the keywords used in the
various clauses of Section 299 and 300 of
I.P.Code. The following comparative table
will be helpful in appreciating the points of
distinction between the two offences.

Section 299
Section 300
A person commits
culpable homicide
if
the
act
by
which the death is
caused is done-
Subject
to
certain
exceptions culpable
homicide is murder if
the act by which the
death is caused is
done.
INTENTION
(a)
with
the
intention
of
causing death; or
(1) with the intention
of causing death; or
(b)
with
the
intention
of
causing
such
bodily injury as is
likely
to
cause
death; or
(2) with the intention
of
causing
such
bodily injury as the
offender knows to be
likely to cause the
death of the person to
whom the harm is
caused;
KNOWLEDGE
KNOWLEDGE
(c)
with
the
knowledge
that
the act is likely to
cause death.
(4)
with
the
knowledge that the
act is so immediately
dangerous
that
it
must
in
all
probability
cause
death or such bodily
injury as is likely to
cause
death,
and
without any excuse
for incurring the risk
of causing death or
such injury as is
mentioned above.

15. On overall scrutiny of the facts
and circumstances of the present case
coupled with the opinion of the Medical
Officer and considering the principle laid
down by the Apex Court in the Case of
Tukaram
and
Ors
Vs.
State
of
Maharashtra, reported in (2011) 4 SCC
788 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
250 and in the case of B.N. Kavatakar
and Another Vs. State of Karnataka,
reported in 1994 SUPP (1) SCC 304, we
are of the considered opinion that it was a
case of homicidal death not amounting to
murder.

16. The prosecution witnesses as well
as medical evidences proved that it was a
homicidal death which had occurred due to
asphyxia.

17. From the upshot of the aforesaid
discussions, it appears that the accused
though had knowledge and intention that
his act would cause bodily harm to the
deceased but did not want to do away with
the deceased. Hence the instant case falls
under the Exceptions 1 and 4 to Section
300 of IPC. While considering Section 299
as
reproduced
herein
above
offence
committed will fall under Section 304 PartI as per the observations of the Apex Court
in Veeran and others Vs. State of M.P.
Decided, (2011) 5 SCR 300 which have to
be also kept in mind.

18. This takes us to the alternative
submission of learned counsel for the
appellants that the quantum of sentence is
too harsh and requires to be modified. In
this regard, we have to analyse the theory
of punishment prevailing in India.

19. In Mohd. Giasuddin Vs. State of
AP, [AIR 1977 SC 1926], explaining
rehabilitary & reformative aspects in
sentencing it has been observed by the
Supreme Court:

"Crime
is
a
pathological
aberration. The criminal can ordinarily be
redeemed and the state has to rehabilitate
rather than avenge. The sub-culture that
leads to ante-social behaviour has to be
countered not by undue cruelty but by
reculturization. Therefore, the focus of
interest in penology in the individual and
the goal is salvaging him for the society.
The infliction of harsh and savage
punishment is thus a relic of past and
regressive times. The human today vies
sentencing as a process of reshaping a
person
who
has
deteriorated
into
criminality and the modern community has
a primary stake in the rehabilitation of the
offender as a means of a social defence.
Hence a therapeutic, rather than an 'in
terrorem' outlook should prevail in our
criminal courts, since brutal incarceration
of the person merely produces laceration of
his mind. If you are to punish a man
retributively, you must injure him. If you
are to reform him, you must improve him
and, men are not improved by injuries."

20. 'Proper Sentence' was explained in
Deo Narain Mandal Vs. State of UP
[(2004) 7 SCC 257] by observing that
Sentence should not be either excessively
harsh
or
ridiculously
low.
While
determining the quantum of sentence, the
court should bear in mind the 'principle of
proportionality'. Sentence should be based
on facts of a given case. Gravity of offence,
manner of commission of crime, age and
sex of accused should be taken into
account. Discretion of Court in awarding
sentence cannot be exercised arbitrarily or
whimsically.

21. In Ravada Sasikala vs. State of
A.P. AIR 2017 SC 1166, the Supreme
Court referred the judgments in Jameel vs
State of UP [(2010) 12 SCC 532], Guru
Basavraj vs State of Karnatak, [(2012) 8
SCC 734], Sumer Singh vs Surajbhan
Singh, [(2014) 7 SCC 323], State of
Punjab vs Bawa Singh, [(2015) 3 SCC
441], and Raj Bala vs State of Haryana,
2 All. Dharmendra Singh Vs. State of U.P.
789
[(2016) 1 SCC 463] and has reiterated that,
in operating the sentencing system, law
should adopt corrective machinery or
deterrence based on factual matrix. Facts
and given circumstances in each case,
nature of crime, manner in which it was
planned
and
committed,
motive
for
commission of crime, conduct of accused,
nature of weapons used and all other
attending circumstances are relevant facts
which
would
enter
into
area
of
consideration. Further, undue sympathy in
sentencing would do more harm to justice
dispensations and would undermine the
public confidence in the efficacy of law. It
is the duty of every court to award proper
sentence having regard to nature of offence
and manner of its commission. The
supreme court further said that courts must
not only keep in view the right of victim of
crime but also society at large. While
considering
imposition
of
appropriate
punishment, the impact of crime on the
society as a whole and rule of law needs to
be balanced. The judicial trend in the
country has been towards striking a balance
between reform and punishment. The
protection of society and stamping out
criminal proclivity must be the object of
law which can be achieved by imposing
appropriate sentence on criminals and
wrongdoers. Law, as a tool to maintain
order and peace, should effectively meet
challenges confronting the society, as
society could not long endure and develop
under
serious
threats
of
crime
and
disharmony. It is therefore, necessary to
avoid undue leniency in imposition of
sentence.
Thus,
the
criminal
justice
jurisprudence adopted in the country is not
retributive but reformative and corrective.
At the same time, undue harshness should
also be avoided keeping in view the
reformative approach underlying in our
criminal justice system.

22. Keeping in view the facts and
circumstances of the case and also keeping
in view criminal jurisprudence in our
country which is reformative and corrective
and not retributive, this Court considers
that no accused person is incapable of
being reformed and therefore, all measures
should be applied to give them an
opportunity of reformation in order to bring
them in the social stream.

23. As discussed above, 'reformative
theory of punishment' is to be adopted and for
that reason, it is necessary to impose
punishment keeping in view the 'doctrine of
proportionality'. It appears from perusal of
impugned judgment that sentence awarded by
learned trial court for life term is very harsh
keeping in view the entirety of facts and
circumstances of the case and gravity of
offence. Hon'ble Apex Court, as discussed
above, has held that undue harshness should
be avoided taking into account the reformative
approach underlying in criminal justice
system.

24. Hence, we modify the conviction of
the appellant and conviction of appellant is
converted from Section 302 IPC into 304 (Part
I) IPC and the appellant is awarded rigorous
imprisonment for 10 years and fine of
Rs.5,000/-. The appellant shall undergo simple
imprisonment of six months in case of default
of fine. The fine shall be paid by the appellant
within four weeks after releasing from jail and
jail authority shall ensure that appellant shall
be put into re-incarceration in case fine is not
paid within the aforesaid period.

25. Accordingly, the appeal is partly
allowed with the modification of sentence,
as above.

26. Record and proceedings be sent
back to the lower court.
790 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
----------
(2023) 2 ILRA 790
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 02.01.2023

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE DR. KAUSHAL JAYENDRA
THAKER, J.
THE HON'BLE MOHD. AZHAR HUSAIN
IDRISI, J.

Criminal Appeal No. 3592 of 2010

Amit Kumar Dubey ...Appellant (In Jail)
Versus
State of U.P. ...Opposite Party

Counsel for the Appellant:
Sri Sudeep Dwivedi, Sri Dinesh Kumar
Yadav, Sri A.R. Nadiwal

Counsel for the Opposite Party:
G.A.

Criminal Law- Quantum of Punishment-
Doctrine
of
Proportionality-While
considering the evidence of witnesses and
the Postmortem report which states that
the injuries on the body of the deceased
would be the cause of death and that it
was homicidal death, we concur with the
finding of the Court below. The criminal
justice
jurisprudence
adopted
in
the
country is not retributive but reformative
and corrective. At the same time, undue
harshness should also be avoided keeping
in
view
the
reformative
approach
underlying in our criminal justice systemAll measures should be applied to give
them an opportunity of reformation in
order to bring them in the social stream-
'reformative theory of punishment' is to
be adopted and for that reason, it is
necessary to impose punishment keeping
in view the 'doctrine of proportionality'. It
appears
from
perusal
of
impugned
judgment
that
sentence
awarded
by
learned trial court for life term is very
harsh keeping in view the entirety of facts
and circumstances of the case and gravity
of offence.

As the criminal jurisprudence of our Country is
reformative and not retributive hence undue
harshness should be avoided, hence sentence of
the appellant modified accordingly.

Criminal Appeal partly allowed. (E-3)

Case Law/ Judgements relied upon:-

1. Mohd. Giasuddin Vs St. of AP, AIR 1977 SC
1926

2. Deo Narain Mandal Vs St. of UP ,(2004) 7
SCC 257

3. Ravada Sasikala Vs St. of A.P. AIR 2017 SC
1166

(Delivered by Hon'ble Mohd. Azhar
Husain Idrisi, J.)

1. Heard Sri Sudeep Dwivedi, learned
counsel for the appellant and learned
A.G.A. for the State.

2. The present appeal challenges the
judgment and order dated 28.04.2010
passed by Additional Sessions Judge/Fast
Track Court No. 1, Mirzapur in Sessions
Trial No. 148 of 2009 (State Vs. Amit
Kumar Dubey) convicting and sentencing
the appellant alone under Section 498-A of
Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter
referred to as 'IPC') for three years simple
imprisonment with fine of Rs.5,000/-,
further sentenced him under Section 304-B
IPC for life imprisonment and also
sentenced him under Section 4 of Dowry
Prohibition Act with fine of Rs. 10,000/-.
In case of default of payment of fine,
further to undergo imprisonment for 6-6
months additional imprisonment.

3. Factual data as culled out from the
record is that a First Information Report