# Vedram & Anr v. State of U.P

- **Citation:** (2024) 5 ILRA 2147
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2024-05-10
- **Case number:** Criminal Appeal No. 5227 of 2019
- **Bench:** Ashwani Kumar Mishra, Mohd. Azhar Husain Idrisi
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/vedram-anr-v-state-of-u-p-52052
- **Pages:** 9

## Headnote

(A) Criminal Law - Criminal Procedure
Code, 1973 - Section - 313 - Indian Penal
Code, 1860-Sectiosn 201, 304-B & 498-A
- Dowry Prohibition Act,1961 - Sections 3
& 4 - Two Appeals - against conviction &
sentence - FIR - Charge - alleged that sister of
informant died due to dowry death - Life
imprisonment for husband and 10 years rigorous
imprisonment for both mother & father in-laws
- appeal was abated against father-in-law due
to his death - Evaluation of evidence - court finds
that, the dead body had been cremated on the
same day of incident, as such neither any
2148 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
postmortem report nor any forensic evidence is
available to the prosecution - even though the
death of the deceased was un-natural, yet no
information was furnished to the police about
the un-natural death of deceased - death of
deceased was occurred within 7 years of
marriage - prosecution witnesses have fully
supported the version of demand of dowry
which persisted till soon before her death -
hence, the conviction of husband is sustained -
but, so for as the role of mother-in-law is
concern who is reported to be around 70 years
of age and in jail for last 5 years - the allegations
is not specific as against her - and since the
deceased herself had started living separately
from her family prior to her death - therefore,
conviction of mother-in-law is reversed - appeal
of mother-in-law is allowed. (Para - 12, 13, 16,
17, 23)

(B) Criminal Law - Criminal Procedure
Code, 1973 - Section - 313 - Indian Penal
Code, 1860-Section - 201, 304-B, 498-A -
Dowry Prohibition Act, - Section - 3, 4 -
Two Appeals - against conviction & sentence -
FIR - Charge - alleged that sister of informant
died due to dowry death - Life imprisonment for
husband and 10 years rigorous imprisonment for
co-accused both mother & father in-laws -
appeal was abated against father-in-law due to
his death - Quantum of punishment - Court finds
that, punishment u/s section 304-B IPC varies
from 7 year to life and it is cardinal principle of
law that reasons have to be given by the trial
court while proceeds to award maximum
permissible sentence for an offence - court finds
no any such reasons - and there are no such
circumstances which may justify awarding of
extreme punishment to the accused husband in
the facts of the present case - hence, in the light
of settled law as rendered in case of 'Hem
Chand' and 'Kashmira Devi' punishment of life
imprisonment u/s 304-B IPC to the accusedhusband is not warranted - sentence awarded
to him be modified to the sentence already
undergone by him - direction issued accordingly
- Appeal is allowed in part. (Para - 18, 19, 20,
22)

One Appeal is allowed & anr. is allowed in
part. (E-11)

List of Cases cited:

## Text

5 All. Vedram & Anr. Vs. State of U.P.
2147
attributed to appellant Indra Pal also
becomes doubtful in the light of the medical
evidence and serious contradiction and
embellishment in the testimony of PW-2.

54. Based on the forgoing discussions,
we have concluded that (i) the prosecution
could have produced either Smt. Prasandi
or her relatives so that the motive could be
well established. The police have neither
recorded the statement of Smt. Prasandi nor
her relatives, and neither has produced the
evidence that could justify the motive
behind the commission of murder, (ii) the
testimony of PW-2 cannot be relied upon in
the facts and circumstances of the case
because of reason; a) that there are serious
discrepancy in the statement of PW-2 with
respect to the motive of the crime; b) the
manner in which the crime has been
committed, has not been explained by the
witness; c) PW-2 becomes evasive to most
of the relevant questions and showed
ignorance when confronted with statement
u/s 161 Cr.P.C. recorded by I.O.; d)
admitted that a panchayat was convened in
his village soon after his brother's murder
and his brother had told that Karamvir was
murdered by one Dayaram and his sons; e)
he had seen three unidentified assailants
scaling the wall, towards South, but could
not identifiable; (iii) non-examination of
servant Jagshoran and Jai Prakash by the
prosecution, their names are mentioned in
the tehrir; (v) the recovery was not effected;
(vi) no scientific evidence was gathered or
sent for the F.S.L. to link the weapon of
offence to the crime.

55. As a result, the conviction and
sentence passed against the appellant vide
impugned judgment of conviction dated
26.11.1980 and order of sentence dated
27.11.1980, passed by VIth Additional
Sessions Judge, Meerut in Sessions Trial
No. 433 of 1979 titled State v. Sohanvir and
Another, arising out of Case Crime No 171
of 1978, under Section 302/34 I.P.C.,
registered at Police Station Jani, District
Meerut, is hereby set aside and the
appellant is acquitted of all the charges.
Thus, the appeal is allowed.

56. Office is directed to send back the
record of this appeal to the trail court
concerned along with a copy of this order
for compliance of section 437-A Cr.P.C.
----------
(2024) 5 ILRA 2147
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 10.05.2024

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE ASHWANI KUMAR MISHRA, J.
THE HON'BLE MOHD. AZHAR HUSAIN
IDRISI, J.

Criminal Appeal No. 5227 of 2019

Vedram & Anr. ...Applicants
Versus
State of U.P. ...Opposite Party

Counsel for the Applicants:
Sri Radhey Shyam Shukla, Sri Vipul Shukla

Counsel for the Opposite Parties:
G.A.

(A) Criminal Law - Criminal Procedure
Code, 1973 - Section - 313 - Indian Penal
Code, 1860-Sectiosn 201, 304-B & 498-A
- Dowry Prohibition Act,1961 - Sections 3
& 4 - Two Appeals - against conviction &
sentence - FIR - Charge - alleged that sister of
informant died due to dowry death - Life
imprisonment for husband and 10 years rigorous
imprisonment for both mother & father in-laws
- appeal was abated against father-in-law due
to his death - Evaluation of evidence - court finds
that, the dead body had been cremated on the
same day of incident, as such neither any
2148 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
postmortem report nor any forensic evidence is
available to the prosecution - even though the
death of the deceased was un-natural, yet no
information was furnished to the police about
the un-natural death of deceased - death of
deceased was occurred within 7 years of
marriage - prosecution witnesses have fully
supported the version of demand of dowry
which persisted till soon before her death -
hence, the conviction of husband is sustained -
but, so for as the role of mother-in-law is
concern who is reported to be around 70 years
of age and in jail for last 5 years - the allegations
is not specific as against her - and since the
deceased herself had started living separately
from her family prior to her death - therefore,
conviction of mother-in-law is reversed - appeal
of mother-in-law is allowed. (Para - 12, 13, 16,
17, 23)

(B) Criminal Law - Criminal Procedure
Code, 1973 - Section - 313 - Indian Penal
Code, 1860-Section - 201, 304-B, 498-A -
Dowry Prohibition Act, - Section - 3, 4 -
Two Appeals - against conviction & sentence -
FIR - Charge - alleged that sister of informant
died due to dowry death - Life imprisonment for
husband and 10 years rigorous imprisonment for
co-accused both mother & father in-laws -
appeal was abated against father-in-law due to
his death - Quantum of punishment - Court finds
that, punishment u/s section 304-B IPC varies
from 7 year to life and it is cardinal principle of
law that reasons have to be given by the trial
court while proceeds to award maximum
permissible sentence for an offence - court finds
no any such reasons - and there are no such
circumstances which may justify awarding of
extreme punishment to the accused husband in
the facts of the present case - hence, in the light
of settled law as rendered in case of 'Hem
Chand' and 'Kashmira Devi' punishment of life
imprisonment u/s 304-B IPC to the accusedhusband is not warranted - sentence awarded
to him be modified to the sentence already
undergone by him - direction issued accordingly
- Appeal is allowed in part. (Para - 18, 19, 20,
22)

One Appeal is allowed & anr. is allowed in
part. (E-11)

List of Cases cited:
1. Hem Chand Vs St. of Har. (1994 6 SCC 727),

2. Kashmira Devi Vs The St. of Uttrakhand (AIR
2020 SC 652).

(Delivered by Hon'ble Ashwani Kumar
Mishra, J.)

1. These two appeals are directed
against the judgment and order of
conviction and sentence dated 5.7.2019,
passed by Additional Sessions Judge/Fast
Track Court No.2, Shahjahanpur, in
Sessions Trial No. 167 of 2016 (State Vs.
Vedram and others), arising out of Case
Crime No.384 of 2015, Police Station
Paraur, District Shahjahanpur, whereby the
accused appellants Vedram and Smt.
Kusuma Devi have been convicted and
sentenced
to
ten
years
rigorous
imprisonment each, as well as accused
appellant Rajendra has been convicted and
sentenced to life imprisonment, under
Section 304-B IPC, and all accused
appellants have also been convicted and
sentenced
to
two
years
rigorous
imprisonment alongwith fine of Rs.5,000/-
each under Section 498-A IPC; two years
rigorous imprisonment alongwith fine of
Rs.3,000/- each under Section 201 IPC; one
years rigorous imprisonment alongwith
fine of Rs.1,000/- each under Section 4
Dowry Prohibition Act. On failure to
deposit the above fines to undergo
additional rigorous imprisonment for one
year each. All punishments are to run
concurrently.

2. Brother of the deceased has made a
written report scribed by Jugal Kishore,
stating that his sister Ramkanti got married
about 4 years back in the month of June,
2012 to accused Rajendra son of Vedram.
She was a graduate. Rajendra and his
brother Manish as well as their father
Vedram and mother-in-law used to harass
5 All. Vedram & Anr. Vs. State of U.P.
2149
her for dowry and on multiple occasions
she informed him on Phone and also on
visits to the parental family. Although
dowry was given as per the financial ability
but due to poverty, the informant could not
meet all demands of the accused persons.
The
aforesaid
persons
demanded
a
motorcycle, gold chain and ring and as
demand in that regard could not be met as
such his sister was tortured and has been
done to death. Her body has been cremated.
The incident has occurred on 19.9.2015 at
5.00 pm. The informant received a
telephone call from one Rajesh about the
incident and has consequently lodged the
report. This written report (Ex.Ka-1) forms
the basis of FIR in Case Crime No.384 of
2015, under Sections 498-A, 304-B, 201
IPC and 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act. Five
persons have been implicated in the FIR,
namely Vedram (father-in-law), Rajendra
(husband), Manish and Anil (brothers-inlaw), mother-in-law of Smt. Ramkanti
(Smt. Kusuma Devi). Since the dead body
had already been cremated on 19.9.2015
itself, as such neither any postmortem was
possible nor any other forensic evidence is
available to the prosecution. Relying upon
testimony of witnesses chargesheet came to
be submitted against 3 of the 5 named
accused i.e. husband Rajendra as well as his
parents namely Vedram and Smt. Kusuma
Devi. Cognizance was taken on the
chargesheet and the case was committed to
the court of sessions where it got registered
as Sessions Trial No.167 of 2016. Alternate
charge was also framed under Section
302/34 IPC in addition to the sections in
which chargesheet was filed by the police.

3. The informant has appeared as PW1 and has supported the prosecution case
with regard to marriage having been held in
June, 2012; giving of dowry articles in
marriage by the family to the deceased;
demand of dowry by the family members
due to which she was physically and
mentally harassed; demanded motorcycle,
gold chain and ring. PW-1 has also proved
the written report. He has also stated that he
came to know of the incident on Phone and
by the time family members could reach
Village Varkhimaee, Police Station Paraur,
District Shahjahanpur, her dead body was
already cremated. In the cross-examination
PW-1 has admitted that no written
complaint with regard to demand of dowry
was ever made. He got no information
regarding death of his sister from her inlaws. He got a Phone call from one Rajesh
but his Phone number is not available. He
has stated that at the time of marriage, there
was no complaint made regarding dowry,
but it was later that dowry was demanded.
Panchayat was also held in that regard.

4. Similarly PW-2 Narendra Kumar
claims to be the brother of deceased and has
stated that marriage got solemnized in June,
2012. He has also supported the plea of
demand of dowry and has testified that on
its failure the deceased has been done to
death. PW-2 has also admitted that ever
since the marriage, no complaint was ever
made with anyone with regard to demand
of dowry by the accused persons. All
expenditure in respect of the marriage was
arranged by the father of the deceased.

5. PW-3 Yadunath Singh is a villager,
who too has supported the prosecution case.

6. PW-4 Rajaram is father of the
deceased. He has stated that at the time of
marriage there was no demand of dowry.
However, all her Stridhan was taken by the
in-laws and this fact was disclosed by the
deceased to her brother Narendra. PW-4
has admitted that some time before the
death of the deceased she had started living
2150 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
separately and the deceased with her
husband had separate living and kitchen
etc. He has clarified that about 15 days prior
to death her daughter and son-in-law
separated from their parents and other
family members.

7. PW-5 Sheeshram has not supported
the prosecution case. This witness has
stated that family members of deceased
were informed and after waiting for
sufficiently
long
the
deceased
was
cremated. There was never ever a demand
of dowry nor any any prior complaint was
made.

8. PW-6 is the Investigating Officer,
who has stated that accused persons were
arrested on 1.10.2015. Statement of
villagers were recorded and it was found
that deceased was cremated in the field at a
distance of about 300 metres from the
house of the accused persons. The
witnesses had informed him that deceased
had committed suicide by hanging.

9. Based upon the evidence led during
trial by the prosecution, statement of
accused persons under Section 313 Cr.P.C.
has been recorded, wherein they have
denied the allegations made against them.
In addition to above accused persons have
stated that deceased committed suicide by
hanging, which fact was intimated to the
family members of the deceased. They
participated in the cremation, whereafter a
Panchayat was held and the family
members of the deceased were demanding
more money and as they could not pay the
amount, a false report has been lodged.
Similar stand has been taken by all the three
accused persons.

10. The accused persons have also
produced their witnesses. DW-1 has stated
that deceased died on account of illness.
The death was reported to family members
but they did not arrive, and therefore, the
body was cremated in the evening. Next
day the family members arrived and
demanded money on account of which FIR
has been lodged. Similar stand has been
taken by DW-2 and DW-3, all of whom are
neighbours and claimed that they have
participated in the cremation. It is on the
basis of above evidence that the court of
sessions
has
convicted
the
accused
appellants and sentenced them as per law.

11. Aggrieved by the judgment and
order of conviction and sentence, the
accused appellants have filed the appeals,
which have been heard together and are
being disposed of by this common
judgment. We have heard Sri Bishram
Tiwari and Sri Ritesh Singh for the
appellants, Sri Vikas Goswami, learned
AGA for the State and have perused the
materials available on record including the
original records of the trial court.

12. In the facts of the case, evidence
on record shows that the marriage of the
deceased has been solemnized with accused
Rajendra in June, 2012. This fact has been
specifically
asserted
by
prosecution
witnesses. Prosecution witnesses have not
been confronted on this aspect by the
defence. Although suggestion has been
given that marriage was held 9 years prior
to the incident, but even in their written
statement the marriage is reported to have
been solemnized in 2010. Upon evaluation
of evidence on the factum of marriage the
trial court has concluded that the death of
deceased has occurred within 7 years of
marriage. Although this finding is assailed
by the counsel for the appellants but having
carefully perused the materials on record
we do not find any reasons to disagree with
5 All. Vedram & Anr. Vs. State of U.P.
2151
the conclusion drawn by the court of
sessions. The categorical statement of
prosecution witnesses about marriage
having been solemnized in June, 2012 is
neither challenged nor any contra-evidence
on this aspect has been led by the defence.
We, therefore, concur with the opinion of
the trial judge that death of the deceased has
occurred within 7 years of the marriage.

13. The other aspect is as to whether
death of the deceased was unnatural or that
she died on account of illness. On this
aspect we find that defence version is not
consistent. Three witnesses have been
produced by the defence namely DW-1,
DW-2 and DW-3, all of whom have
asserted that the deceased was suffering
from ailment and the death was natural. No
evidence in support of such plea has,
however, been placed on record. There are
no prescriptions of the doctor nor any
details of illness etc. has been furnished.
We otherwise find that the defence version
that deceased died a natural death due to
illness is contradicted by their own
statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C.,
wherein the accused have stated that the
deceased committed suicide by hanging.
The defence version on the factum of death,
therefore, is contradictory. While accused
in their statement under Section 313
Cr.P.C.
claimed
that
the
deceased
committed suicide by hanging, but their
witnesses claim that death occurred on
account of illness and was natural. We have
examined the evidence on this aspect of the
matter, and we find the defence version on
this score also not to be trustworthy. The
Investigating Officer in his testimony has
stated that he made enquiries from various
villagers and he was informed that
deceased had committed suicide by
hanging. This is also the plea set up by the
accused in their testimony under Section
313 Cr.P.C. The weight of evidence on
record, therefore, persuades us to endorse
the conclusions drawn by the trial court, as
per which the deceased died an unnatural
death. Death by suicide cannot be said to be
natural, and therefore, we agree with the
conclusion of the trial judge that the
deceased died an unnatural death.

14. Coming to the other aspect
relating to demand of dowry soon before
her death, we find that the prosecution
witnesses of fact have stated that the
deceased was harassed for demand of
dowry.

15. PW-4, who is the father of the
deceased, although has stated that at the
time of marriage or soon thereafter the
demand of dowry was not made but after
few months when her daughter came in the
month of November, she was physically
assaulted and all her Stridhan was taken by
the in-laws. His elder son Narendra had got
back the deceased. PW-4 has also stated
that a report with regard to physical assault
to the deceased was lodged with police
station but its details are not available. The
evidence adduced by the prosecution
clearly supports its plea that the deceased
was subjected to demand of dowry and
even soon before her death the demand of
dowry had continued.

16. In the facts of the case, we find
that even though the death of the deceased
was unnatural, yet no information was
furnished to the police about the unnatural
death of the deceased. It was expected that
accused persons would inform the police
regarding unnatural death of deceased. No
such information was given. It is admitted
that the death occurred on 19.9.2015 and on
the same day the deceased was cremated.
Even if the family members of the deceased
2152 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
had not arrived on 19.9.2015, as is
suggested by the defence, the accused
persons were expected to have deferred the
cremation till arrival of the family members
or at least inform the police about the
incident. The manner in which dead body
has been surreptitiously disposed of
without intimation made to the police, we
are of the view that this was a case of dowry
death. The prosecution witnesses although
have not furnished the specific details with
regard to the date and time of demand of
dowry but they have fully supported the
prosecution version of demand of dowry of
motorcycle, gold chain and ring. In the facts
of the case, we are of the opinion that the
deceased has met an unnatural death within
7 years of the marriage, and that there was
a demand of dowry which persisted till
soon before her death. The conviction of
accused appellant Rajendra under Section
304-B IPC is, therefore, sustained.

17. Father-in-law of the deceased
Vedram (accused appellant) has already
died. Mother-in-law Smt. Kusuma Devi is
reported to be around 70 years of age and is
in jail for the last 5 years. So far as the role
of mother-in-law in demanding dowry is
concerned, the allegation is not specific as
against her and the allegations at best
appear to be omnibus and vague. PW-4,
who is the father of the deceased, has
categorically admitted that deceased and
her husband (accused Rajendra) had
separated from the family prior to her
death. Not only that the deceased had
started living separately but their kitchen
etc. had also separated. In that view of the
matter, we are of the view that even if the
deceased has died unnatural death within 7
years of marriage, yet Smt. Kusuma Devi
cannot be convicted for offence under
Section 304-B, 498-A, 201 IPC & Section
4 Dowry Prohibition Act in the absence of
any specific allegation against her, when it
is admitted that deceased had a separate
living. The conviction of Smt. Kusuma
Devi under Section 304-B, 498-A, 201 IPC
& Section 4 Dowry Prohibition Act is,
therefore, reversed.

18. Coming to the question of
sentence, we find that the trial court has
awarded life sentence to the accused
appellant Rajendra under Section 304-B
IPC. Punishment under Section 304-B IPC
varies from 7 years to life. When the court
proceeds to award maximum permissible
sentence for an offence, it is the cardinal
principle of law that reasons have to be
given
for
awarding
such
maximum
punishment. We do not find any such
reasons to have been disclosed by the trial
court. We otherwise find that there are no
circumstances, which may justify awarding
of extreme punishment to the accused
appellant Rajendra in the facts of the
present case. Considering the evidence in
its entirety, we are of the view that
punishment of life under Section 304-B
IPC to the accused appellant Rajendra is not
warranted.

19. In Hem Chand Vs. State of
Haryana, (1994) 6 SCC 727, the Supreme
Court has observed that though punishment
under Section 304-B IPC varies from 7
years to life but award of extreme
punishment should not be as a matter of
course and must be awarded in rare cases.
In para 7 and 8, the Supreme Court
observed as under:-

"7. Now coming to the question
of sentence, it can be seen that Section 304B IPC lays down that:

"Whoever commits dowry death
shall be punished with imprisonment for a
term which shall not be less than seven
5 All. Vedram & Anr. Vs. State of U.P.
2153
years
but
which
may
extend
to
imprisonment for life."

The point for consideration is
whether
the
extreme
punishment
of
imprisonment for life is warranted in the
instant case. 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. It can therefore be seen that
irrespective of the fact whether such person
is directly responsible for the death of the
deceased or not by virtue of the
presumption, he is deemed to have
committed the dowry death if there were
such cruelty or harassment and that if the
unnatural death has occurred within seven
years from the date of marriage. Likewise
there is a presumption under Section 113-B
of the Evidence Act as to the dowry death.
It lays down that the court shall presume
that the person who has subjected the
deceased wife to cruelty before her death
caused the dowry death if it is shown that
before her death, such woman had been
subjected, by the accused, to cruelty or
harassment in connection with any demand
for
dowry.
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 above
are satisfied. In the instant case no doubt
the prosecution has proved that the
deceased died an unnatural death namely
due to strangulation, but there is no direct
evidence connecting the accused. It is also
important to note in this context that there
is no charge under Section 302 IPC. The
trial court also noted that there were two
sets of medical evidence on the file in
respect of the death of the deceased. Dr
Usha Rani PW 6 and Dr Indu Lalit PW 7
gave one opinion. According to them no
injury was found on the dead body and that
the same was highly decomposed. On the
other hand, Dr Dalbir Singh PW 13 who
also examined the dead body and gave his
opinion, deposed that he noticed some
injuries at the time of re-post-mortem
examination. 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 has certainly to be taken into
consideration in balancing the sentence to
be awarded to the accused. As a matter of
fact, the trial court only found that the
death was unnatural and the aspect of
cruelty has been established and therefore
the offences punishable under Sections
304-B and 201 IPC have been established.
The High Court in a very short judgment
concluded that it was fully proved that the
death of the deceased in her matrimonial
home was a dowry death otherwise than in
normal circumstances as a result of cruelty
meted out to her and therefore an offence
under Section 304-B IPC was made out.
Coming to the sentence the High Court
pointed out that the accused-appellant was
a police employee and instead of checking
the crime, he himself indulged therein and
precipitated in it and that bride-killing
cases are on the increase and therefore a
serious view has to be taken. As mentioned
above, Section 304-B IPC only raises
presumption and lays down that minimum
sentence should be seven years but it may
2154 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
extend to imprisonment for life. Therefore
awarding
extreme
punishment
of
imprisonment for life should be in rare
cases and not in every case.

8. Hence, we are of the view that
a sentence of 10 years' RI would meet the
ends of justice. We, accordingly while
confirming the conviction of the appellant
under Section 304-B IPC, reduce the
sentence of imprisonment for life to 10
years' RI. The other conviction and
sentence passed against the appellant are,
however, confirmed. In the result, the
appeal is dismissed subject to the above
modification of sentence."

20. In Kashmira Devi Vs. The State of
Uttarakhand, AIR 2020 SC 652, the
principle laid down in Hem Chand (supra)
has been reiterated and the Court observed
as under in para 24:-

"24. Having arrived at the above
conclusion the quantum of sentence
requires consideration. The High Court has
awarded life imprisonment to the appellant
on being convicted under Section 304-B
IPC. The minimum sentence provided is
seven years but it may extend to
imprisonment for life. In fact, this Court in
Hem Chand v. State of Haryana [Hem
Chand v. State of Haryana, (1994) 6 SCC
727 : 1995 SCC (Cri) 36] has held that
while imposing the sentence, awarding
extreme punishment of imprisonment for
life under Section 304-B IPC should be in
rare cases and not in every case. Though
the mitigating factor noticed in the said
case was different, in the instant case
keeping in view the age of the appellant and
also the contribution that would be
required by her to the family, while
husband is also aged and further taking
into consideration all other circumstances,
the sentence as awarded by the High Court
to the appellant herein is liable to be
modified."

21. In light of the observation made in
para 24 (reproduced above), the Court
modified the sentence to a period of 7 years.
Para 25 of the judgment in Kashmira Devi
(supra) is, thus, reproduced hereinafter:-

"25. In the result, the following:
Order

25.1. The conviction of the
appellant recorded by the High Court
under Section 304-B IPC and Section 498A IPC through its judgment dated 29-62017 [State v. Govind Singh, 2017 SCC
OnLine Utt 1932] is upheld and affirmed.

25.2. The sentence ordered by the
High Court through its order dated 10-72017 [State of Uttarakhand v. Govind
Singh, GA No. 42 of 2010, decided on 107-2017 (Utt)] is modified and the sentence
of imprisonment for life is altered by
ordering the appellant to undergo rigorous
imprisonment for a period of seven years
which shall include the period of sentence
already undergone by the appellant. The
fine as imposed and the default sentence is
sustained.

25.3. The appeal is allowed in
part, in the above terms.

25.4. The parties to bear their
own costs."

22. The accused appellant Rajendra
has been taken in custody on 20.9.2015 and
has remained in jail ever since then. The
actual period of incarceration undergone by
him is about 8 years 7 months and with
remission the incarceration period is almost
10 years. We are of the considered view
that the sentence awarded to him under
Section 304-B IPC be modified to the
sentence already undergone by him. The
fine and the default sentence is maintained.
5 All. Abbas Ansari Vs. Directorate of Enforcement, Allahabad
2155
The appellant Rajendra is set to liberty on
the sentence already undergone, subject to
observance of Section 437A Cr.P.C.,
provided he is not wanted in any other case.
Criminal Appeal No. 2720 of 2024,
consequently, succeeds and is allowed in
part, to that extent.

23. For the reasons recorded above,
the Criminal Appeal No. 5227 of 2019 of
accused appellant Smt. Kusuma Devi
succeeds and is allowed. The judgment and
order of conviction and sentence dated
5.7.2019, passed in Sessions Trial No. 167
of 2016 (State Vs. Vedram and others),
arising out of Case Crime No.384 of 2015,
against the accused appellant Smt. Kusuma
Devi is set aside. Accused appellant Smt.
Kusuma Devi is reported to be on bail, as
such her bail bonds stands discharged. The
appeal at the instance of accused appellant
Vedram abates and is dismissed.
----------
(2024) 5 ILRA 2155
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 09.05.2024

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE JASPREET SINGH, J.

Crl. Misc. Bail Application No. 6914 of 2023

Abbas Ansari ...Applicant
Versus
Directorate of Enforcement, Allahabad
 ...Opp. Party

Counsel for the Applicant:
Pranjal
Krishna,
Mirza
Shariq
Aziz,
Purnendu Chakravarty

Counsel for the Opp. Party:
Rohit Tripathi

Criminal Law - Indian Penal Code, 1860 -
Sections 120-B, 419, 420, 433, 434, 447,
467, 468 & 471 - Prevention of Damages
to public property Act, 1984 - Sections 3
& 4 - The Prevention of money laundering
Act, 2002 - Sections 2(u), 3, 4, 44 & 45 -
Application for Bail u/s 45 of PMLA Act, - three
FIR - the first FIR is against M/s Vikas
Construction Firm through its partners for
alleged encroachment on public property by
falsification of records, in which applicant has
neither directly nor indirectly to do with the daily
affairs of the firm - in second FIR, the present
applicant has neither named nor he has been
charge-sheeted and the allegations are against
co-accused - while in the third FIR, lodged
against applicant along with his other family
members as co-accused - grounds has also
taken that entire case of prosecution revolves
around the theory that the present applicant
received money from his family members
generated from the firm as a beneficiary, -
applicant is completely unaware regarding the
alleged origin of proceeds of crime and
allegations are vague and baseless -allegation
regarding not explaining the transactions from
his account is itself not sufficient to charge the
applicant for the alleged offence of money
laundering - court observed that, - from perusal
of material available on record prima facie it
reflects the involvement of present applicant -
court is also required to consider the nature and
gravity of the accusation, severity of the
punishment in the event of conviction and the
likelihood of the offence being repeated,
reasonable apprehension of the witnesses being
influenced and danger, of course, of justice
defeated by grant of bail - held, the plea
considering the fact that the applicant is a
member of the legislative assembly and a
national level sportsman yet not knowing how
the funds were being given to him including
quantum of the funds given by his relatives to
purse his own sporting and political pursuits
does not inspire confidence - taking an overall
view including the gravity of offence and the
witness of fact are yet to be examined and also
keeping in mind the dictum of the Apex Court
the application for bail is rejected - further,
direction issued to the trial court to expedite the
trial. (Para - 38, 39, 41, 42, 43)

Bail Application Rejected. (E-11)

List of Cases cited: