Smt. Vidya Devi And Others vs The State Of U.P.
2016 Latest Caselaw 5802 ALL

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
 

Reserved
 
AFR
 

 
Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 5863 of 2005
 

 
Appellant :- Smt. Vidya Devi And Others
 
Respondent :- The State Of U.P.
 
Counsel for Appellant :- D.S.M. Tripathi,Brijesh Kumar Singh,Devi Jai Shanker,Jai Shanker Prasad Singh,Km. S. Srivastava,Prasad Singh,Smt.Satya Srivastava,Sunil Vashisth
 
Counsel for Respondent :- Government Advocate
 

 
Hon'ble Bala Krishna Narayana,J.

Hon'ble Arvind Kumar Mishra-I,J.

(Delivered by Hon'ble Arvind Kumar Mishra-I, J.)

Appellants Smt. Vidya Devi (mother-in-law), Smt. Minto (Sister-in-law), Samar Bahadur Singh (father-in-law), Trivendra Kumar Singh (brother-in-law) have preferred this appeal against the judgment and order of conviction dated 19.12.2005 passed by the Special Judge (Essential Commodities Act)/Additional Sessions Judge, Varanasi in Sessions Trial No.876 of 2004, State Vs. Varunendra Kumar Singh and others, arising out of Case Crime No.214 of 2004, under Sections 498A, 304B I.P.C. And 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act, Police Station Shivpur, District Varanasi, whereby the accused-convicts have been sentenced to 3 years' rigorous imprisonment with fine of Rs.5000/- under Section 498A IPC, in default of payment of fine, six months' additional imprisonment, further sentenced to life imprisonment under Section 304 B IPC and one year rigorous imprisonment coupled with fine of Rs.2000/-, in case of default in payment of fine, two months' additional imprisonment under Section 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act shall be suffered by them. Sentences to run concurrently.

The aforesaid accused-convicts were acquitted of charge under Section 3 of Dowry Prohibition Act by the same impugned judgment.

Relevant to mention at this stage that Varunendra Kumar Singh, husband of deceased convicted by the trial court under aforesaid sections of IPC and Dowry Prohibition Act, respectively, was sent to the Juvenile Justice Board, Varanasi, for passing appropriate orders on the point of sentence.

Heard Sri R.K. Singh, learned Advocate assisted by Sri Yogesh Srivastava, learned counsel for the appellants and Sri Saghir Ahmad, learned A.G.A. assisted by Sri Hasan Abdi, brief holder for the State and perused the records available on file.

Prosecution case giving rise to this appeal has its seed in the first information report lodged by the first informant, Pankaj Singh (brother of the deceased) son of late Doodhnath Singh, resident of Gram-Mahada, Police Station Cholapur, District Varanasi, at Police Station Shivpur, Sub-District Sadar, District Varanasi, on 08.09.2004 at 18.30 hours to the effect that his sister Seema had tied her nuptial knot with Varunendra Kumar Singh son of Samar Bahadur Singh on 21st May, 2004. His sister Seema was tortured by her in-laws for not bringing sufficient dowry and they were threatening her of life for not bringing Splendor Plus motorcycle. Today i.e. 08.09.2004, some unknown person informed about death of his sister saying that her in-laws are trying to dispose of corpse of Seema. When the first informant Pankaj Kumar Singh in company of his co-villagers went to the spot at Shyampuri Colony, he saw that his sister was murdered by hanging and her in-laws were trying to dispose of the corpse. In the latter part of first information report, it has been specifically alleged that because of non-fulfillment of dowry, his sister, Seema was murdered by Varunendra Kumar Singh (husband), Trivendra Kumar Singh (Jeth), Smt. Minto (Jethani), Smt. Vidya Devi (mother-in-law) and Samar Bahadur Singh (father-in-law). Report be lodged and appropriate action be taken. Scribe of this report is Ram Pratap Singh. This report is Exhibit Ka-1.

The contents of aforesaid information were taken down in Check FIR on 08.09.2004 at 18.30 hours at Crime No.214 of 2004, under Sections 498A, 304B IPC and 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act, Police Station Shivpur, District Varanasi. Check FIR is Exhibit Ka-6 on record. On the basis of entry so made in Check FIR, a case was registered against the aforesaid accused persons in the General Diary vide Entry No.39 at 18.30 hours on 08.09.2004, which is Exhibit Ka-7. Thereafter investigation ensued.

As the investigation proceeded further inquest report of deceased Seema wife of Varunendra Kumar Singh was got prepared by Murli Dhar Mishra PW-3,(A.S.D.M. Sadar, Varanasi). The preparation of inquest commenced on 09.09.2004 at 10:00 a.m. and ended at 2:00 p.m. the same day. This inquest report is Ext. Ka-2. In the opinion of inquest witnesses, it was suggested that dead body of deceased Seema be sent for postmortem examination, for ascertaining real cause of death. In this way, certain relevant papers were prepared for sending the dead body for postmortem examination. Letter to Chief Medical Officer is also marked as Exhibit Ka-7. Relevant to mention at this stage that the concerned General Diary entry whereby the case was registered against the aforesaid appellants had already been marked, as Exhibit Ka-7, therefore, this letter to CMO may be read for the sake of convenience in this judgment, as Exhibit Ka-7A. Letter to S.H.O. Lanka, Varanasi is Exhibit Ka-8. Photonash is Exhibit Ka-9 and Police Form-13 Challan dead body is Exhibit Ka-10.

Thereafter, the dead body of Seema was sent for autopsy at mortuary BHU, Varanasi, where Dr. S.K. Tripathi PW-7 conducted postmortem examination on the dead body of Seema on 09.09.2004 at 5.15 p.m. Following ante-mortem injuries were found on the dead body of the deceased (Seema) by Dr. S.K. Tripathi PW-7, which are extracted herein below:-

Ligature Mark- 29 cm x 2-3 ½ cm obliquely placed over high up neck, 3 cm below right ear knot impression and 5 cm below left ear. On cut - ecchymosis found on the subcutaneous.

Ante-mortem injuries

1- Contusion 3 cm x 1 cm on the front of right leg shin area 12 cm below right knee.

2- Contusion 2 cm x 1 cm on the front of left leg shin area 6 cm below right Knee.

3- Contusion 2 cm x ½ cm on the shin left leg 12 cm blow left Knee.

4- Contusion 3 cm x ½ cm on front of left thigh 8 cm above left knee.

Cause of death was stated to be due to asphyxia as a result of hanging. Duration from time of death upto time of postmortem examination was said to be 1-¾ day.

Dr. S.K. Tripathi PW-7 has proved this postmortem examination report, as Exhibit Ka-6.

The Investigating Officer, Santosh Kumar, Circle Officer, PW-5 Cantt., Varanasi proceeded to the spot and prepared site plan, which is Exhibit Ka-3 on record. He recorded statement of the arrested accused in Parcha No.2 dated 09.09.2004. He also recorded statement of the concerned Magistrate and inquest witnesses in Parcha No.2A on the same day. He also obtained marriage card of deceased Seema Devi with accused Varunendra Kumar Singh and has proved the same as Exhibit Ka-4. After completing various formalities, he filed charge-sheet against the accused persons under Sections 498A, 304B IPC and 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act, at Crime No.214 of 2004, on 20.9.2004 and has proved the same as Exhibit Ka-5 on record.

Thereafter, the case of the appellants was committed to the Court of Sessions from where it was made over of the aforesaid trial court for conduction of trial and disposal. The learned trial Judge heard the appellants on the point of charge and found prima facie ground existing for framing charges under Sections 498A, 304B IPC and Section 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act vide his order dated 18.11.2004. After framing charges under aforesaid sections of IPC and the Dowry Prohibition Act the same were read over and explained to the accused persons, who denied charges and opted for trial.

The prosecution in order to prove guilt of the accused persons examined as many as eight prosecution witnesses. Brief reference of the same is sketched herein under:-

Pankaj Kumar Singh PW-1 is the first informant and brother of the deceased Seema Devi. He has proved written report Exhibit Ka-1. Smt. Radhika Singh PW-2 is the mother of the deceased. She has testified fact about dowry demand and torture meted to her daughter by the accused persons. Murli Dhar Mishra, A.S.D.M. (Sadar), Varanasi is PW-3. He got inquest report prepared on 09.09.2004 and has proved the same as Ext. Ka-2. Constable Rajesh Kumar Singh is P.W.4. He has participated in the proceeding meant for inquest report and has also testified fact that he conveyed corpse of the deceased Seema at mortuary, BHU, Varanasi. Santosh Kumar, Circle Officer, Cantt. Varanasi is PW-5. He has detailed about various steps taken by him for completing the investigation. Besides proving a number of papers, he has also proved charge sheet Ext. Ka-5. Constable Shyam Sunder Giri PW-6 has prepared Check FIR and has made entry in General Diary at Serial No.39 dated 08.09.2004 at 6.30 p.m. and has proved Ext. Ka-6 and Ext. Ka-7, respectively. Dr. S.K. Tripathi PW-7 has conducted postmortem examination on dead body of the deceased Seema and has proved postmortem examination report Ext. Ka-6. Virendra Vikram Singh, Sub-Inspector, Police Station Rohaniya, Varanasi PW-8 has prepared inquest report under supervision of Additional City Magistrate-III and has verified facts of preparation of inquest report and other papers prepared at the time of preparation of inquest report for sending the dead body of the deceased for postmortem examination.

Thereafter the evidence for prosecution was closed and statement of appellants was recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. The appellants in their statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. took plea that neither any demand for dowry was ever made by them nor was the deceased ever tortured for the same.

The accused Samar Bahadur Singh (father-in-law) has stated in his statement that at the time of occurrence, he was posted as constable at Police Station Bairiya and he was not present on the spot. His wife Smt. Vidya Devi (mother-in-law) also resided with him. Smt. Seema (deceased) committed suicide out of frustration. No demand of dowry was ever made and the marriage of deceased with his son Varunendra Kumar Singh took place because Seema was daughter of a widow and she was educated and was under employment.

Thereafter, the defence also led ocular testimony and has produced Ajay Kumar Singh DW-1. He has testified fact that he was a mediator in the marriage of Seema (deceased) and Varunendra Kumar Singh (husband). Besides, he has also testified certain relevant points.

Chandra Shekhar DW-2 claims himself to be a compounder at Dr. Sudha Surgical Hospital, Tagore Town, Varanasi. He has testified certain facts regarding treatment of deceased and has proved papers of treatment of the deceased as Exhibit Kha-1. Constable 496 Rama Kant Singh, DW-3, Police Station Bairiya, District Ballia has proved certain GD entry dated 07.09.2004 and 08.09.2004, as Exhibit Kha-2 and Kha-3.

Thereafter evidence for the defence was closed and the matter was posted for arguments. Learned trial court after hearing both the parties and appreciation of evidence and marshalling of facts passed the aforesaid judgment and order of conviction dated 19.12.2005 and sentenced the appellants under Sections 498A, 304B IPC and Section 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act as aforesaid. Appellants were acquitted of charge under Section 3 of The Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 by the trial court.

Consequently, this appeal.

It has been vehemently claimed on behalf of the appellants that in this case, the conviction is without any base and against evidence on record, hence the same is vitiated, for the reason that essential ingredients of dowry death as contained under Section 304B IPC are neither made out nor have been legally proved in this case against the appellants. The appellants had no motive to commit death of a lady, who was employed as 'Shikshamitra'. The deceased was herself an asset for her in-laws and they knew it better that the deceased will fetch good fortune in future and condition of her parental house (maiyka) was well known to the appellants. There is no proof regarding any physical or mental torture given by the appellants to the deceased for non-fulfillment of dowry demand soon before the death.

It is obvious in the testimony of prosecution witnesses that no dowry was demanded at the time of marriage. The reason for death of deceased has been explained by the appellants by producing DW-1 Ajay Kumar Singh and DW-2 Chandra Shekhar, who have given a number of reasons for death of deceased. In this regard, testimony of Chandra Shekhar DW-2 is quite convincing. The relationship between the two families was cordial and peaceful and no such disagreement ever took place for demand of dowry as alleged in the first information report.

Appellant-Samar Bahadur Singh (father-in-law) is a constable and was employed at Police Station- Bairiya, District Ballia at the time of occurrence. At the relevant point of time, his presence on the spot can neither be anticipated nor has it been so proved by the prosecution witnesses. The appellants cannot be said to be beneficiary of dowry demand. In this case, implication of all the appellants is false and without any reason. The deceased herself committed suicide out of frustration given by her own mother and brother by demanding the stipend/remuneration, which she was getting as 'Shikshamitra'.

Lastly, learned counsel also contended that in this case, punishment awarded against the appellants is too harsh and is not justified under facts and circumstances of the case. Smt. Vidya Devi (mother-in-law), Smt. Minto (Jethani), Samar Bahadur Singh (father-in-law) and Triveni Kumar Singh (Jeth) of the deceased have been awarded sentence of life imprisonment, which is extreme penalty prescribed for offence under Section 304B IPC and is not justifiable looking to the attendant facts and circumstances of the case and the same is disproportionate to the offence proved and the relationship of accused with the deceased. Therefore, the trial court ought to have taken lenient view, which the trial court failed to take and this particular aspect may be considered in right perspective by this Court and just order may be passed in this case on quantum of sentence in the interest of justice.

Learned AGA, while replying to the aforesaid arguments, has submitted that testimony of all the prosecution witnesses is consistent, clinching and inspiring confidence. All ingredients of Section 304B IPC have been proved and every aspect, as required under law, has been established. The appellants were unable to bring out and establish their case of suicide by the deceased. Presumption under Section 113B has been rightly drawn by the trial court against the appellants and their conviction under Sections 304B, 498A IPC and Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act is based on material on record. The trial court has considered all the substantial facts and circumstances of the case comprehensively and based its judgment of conviction on the same, which cannot be faulted with.

He further added that so far as sentencing part of the judgment is concerned, the same is also justified, for the reason that a helpless and innocent lady was brutally murdered for non-fulfillment of dowry demand, which is inhuman and barbaric against her, apart from being a social crime. The sentence awarded by the trial court is reasonable and justified under the facts and circumstances of the case.

Also considered above submissions.

The moot point involved for adjudication of this appeal relates to fact whether the prosecution has not been able to prove dowry death under Section 304B IPC and cruelty to deceased under Section 498A IPC and demand of dowry subsequent to marriage of Seema with Varunendra Kumar Singh under Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act and whether the sentence imposed on the appellants particularly under Section 304B IPC is disproportionate and not justifiable?

Before proceedings further with the case it would be relevant to reflect on certain relevant facts at this stage. In this case both the sides admit factum of marriage between Seema and Varunendra Kumar Singh on 21st May, 2004. Also both the sides admit death of Seema Devi to be unnatural. The only point in controversy remains to be decided revolves around factum of cruelty, demand of dowry and dowry death of Seema whether committed by the accused?

Thereafter, our consideration of the case is confined particularly to the appraisal of facts, circumstances and evidence on aforesaid aspects of dowry demand, cruelty and on point of dowry death or theory of proposed suicide committed by the deceased Seema out of frustration?

At the very outset, a glance at the contents of first information report reveals allegation of dowry death of Seema Devi by and at the hands of the appellants. It is named FIR against Varunendra Kumar Singh (husband of the deceased), Trivendra Kumar Singh (Jeth), Smt. Minto (Jethani), Smt. Vidya Devi (mother-in-law) and Samar Bahadur Singh (father-in-law) of the deceased Seema who allegedly caused her dowry death on 08.09.2004.

At this stage, we may scrutinize testimony of Dr. S.K. Tripathi P.W.7, wherein, he has described ligature mark with dimension 29 cm x 2-3 ½ cm obliquely placed over high up neck, 3 cm below right ear knot impression and 5 cm below left ear. On cut - ecchymosis found on the subcutaneous. Injury No.1- Contusion 3 cm x 1 cm on the front of right leg shin area 12 cm below right knee. Injury No.2- Contusion 2 cm x 1 cm on the front of left leg shin area 6 cm below right Knee. Injury No.3- Contusion 2 cm x ½ cm on the shin left leg 12 cm blow left Knee. Injury No.4- Contusion 3 cm x ½ cm on front of left thigh 8 cm above left knee.

Obviously, these injuries have been proved by Dr. S.K. Tripathi, PW-7. In the opinion of the doctor, the death could have taken place prior to 1-¾ days. One thing is apparent that apart from above referred ligature mark, the deceased also sustained several injuries on her legs. The point for consideration arises as to whether these injuries as found on both legs can be attributed to case where a person has committed suicide? The answer is certainly in the negative, for the reason that there is no such attendant circumstance or independent corroboration that may establish or allude to the possibility that these injuries on legs of the deceased could have been caused by instrumentality of the deceased herself or by instrumentality of other object on the spot, because in this case, it is virtually established that when the corpse of Seema was seen by the first informant- Pankaj Kumar Singh, it was kept in the lobby of the house. The defence has also asked certain relevant question with Murli Dhar Mishra PW-3 (A.S.D.M. Sadar, Varanasi) in his cross-examination, wherein he has stated that he did not see the room where the deceased was stated to have been hanging from the ceiling of the house.

Special mention may be made from testimony emerging in cross-examination of Investigating Officer Santosh Kumar, Circle Officer, PW-5, Cantt., Varanasi on page 28 of paper book, wherein certain particular questions have also been put to this witness in cross-examination on point whether the room (where hanging was alleged to have taken place) was not bolted from inside? The answer was given that it was not bolted from inside the room simlarily answer has been given that there was no chair found inside the room with some table on it.

Now, the point for consideration regarding presence of appellant Samar Bahadur Singh whether on duty at District Ballia or at the place of occurrence (at Varanasi) assumes importance. In this context, the defence has led testimony of Constable-496 Rama Kant Singh, DW-3, Police Station Bairiya, District Ballia. As per his testimony, some information was received at the Bairiya police station and he has proved relevant GD dated 08.09.2004. It emerges from his testimony, that some information regarding serious condition of Seema was received on that date (8.9.2004) around 12 noon when appellant Samar Bahadur Singh gave leave application and started off for his house (at Varanasi). The relevant GD entries have been placed on record as Ext. Kha-2 and Ext. Kha-3, respectively.

However, this special aspect was also investigated into by Investigating Officer Santosh Kumar, Circle Officer, PW-5, Cantt., Varanasi. He has stated in his cross-examination on page-29 of the paper book that during investigation, he did not come across any such material that Samar Bahadur Singh was on duty at the time of incident.

Here one relevant aspect need be elaborated by us that Samar Bahadur Singh was posted as a Constable at Police Station Bairiya. There is nothing on record from which we may either infer or whisper that police personnel are trying to scale down fact of engagement of the appellant Samar Bahadur Singh at Police Station Bairiya and instead making his presence at his house. There is no point for holding that police personnel, who are engaged in the investigation of this case have any grudge against the appellant Samar Bahadur Singh.

It has also come in the testimony of DW-3 that the distance between the place of occurrence (Shyampuri Colony Sector B Meerapur Basahi, P.S. Shivpur, District Varanasi) and Police Station Bairiya can be covered by road travel within 4-5 hours. Therefore, assuming it to be; that any person is on duty at Bairiya police station, even then he can manage things in his own way within 4 or 5 hours and he may easily return from his house at Varanasi to Ballia. Therefore, merely because an application for leave was given at Police Station Bairiya at 12.00 noon on 8.9.2004, would not be fair enough to show that the appellant Samar Bahadur Singh had no occasion to be present at the place of occurrence (at Varanasi) at relevant point of time.

Now coming to the merit of the case, we may consider factum of demand of dowry. Pankaj Kumar Singh PW-1 (brother of the deceased) and Smt. Radhika Singh PW-2 (mother of the deceased), are the two witnesses of fact. They have proved fact of dowry demand subsequent to marriage of the deceased Seema with Varunendra Kumar Singh. Evidence of the two witnesses of fact establishes demand of dowry in the shape of motorcycle and Rs.50,000/- by all the appellants from deceased Seema. In this case, the deceased Seema had occasion to visit her parental home (maiyaka) and she used to remain there from Monday to Saturday almost every week and then she used to go back to her husband and in-laws house in the evening of Saturday and then again she used to leave her in-laws house in the morning of following Monday, because the deceased was working as 'Shikshamitra' in village Mahda for which she was being paid fixed stipend.

The defence has tried to suggest that the deceased was suffering from severe mental tension because her mother and brothers insisted for obtaining her remuneration/stipend, while she was not willing to give the same to them. But evidence on record does not support such a situation that the deceased was ever under mental pressure. Had it been so, she would not have committed suicide in the house of her in-laws, but could have easily expressed her anguish first in some manner and then she would have taken extreme decision to end her life and she would not have gone over to her parental home (maiyaka) and would have resided there every week from Monday to Saturday. As per testimony on record, factum of demand of dowry and non-fulfillment of the same by the complainant side has been well established and rightly so concluded by the trial court regarding which, we see no reason to interfere in the same at this stage.

At this juncture, it would be relevant to refer Sections 304 B and 498A IPC for correct appreciation of law and fact under context, these sections are extracted herein below:-

[304B. Dowry death.--(1) Where the death of a woman is caused by any burns or bodily injury or occurs otherwise than under normal circumstances within seven years of her marriage and it is shown that soon before her death she was subjected to cruelty or har­assment by her husband or any relative of her husband for, or in connection with, any demand for dowry, such death shall be called "dowry death", and such husband or relative shall be deemed to have caused her death.

Explanation.--For the purpose of this sub-section, "dowry" shall have the same meaning as in section 2 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 (28 of 1961).

(2) Whoever commits dowry death shall be punished with imprison­ment for a term which shall not be less than seven years but which may extend to imprisonment for life.]

498A. Husband or relative of husband of a woman subjecting her to cruelty.--Whoever, being the husband or the relative of the husband of a woman, subjects such woman to cruelty shall be pun­ished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to three years and shall also be liable to fine.

Explanation.--For the purpose of this section, "cruelty" means--

(a) any wilful conduct which is of such a nature as is likely to drive the woman to commit suicide or to cause grave injury or danger to life, limb or health (whether mental or physical) of the woman; or

(b) harassment of the woman where such harassment is with a view to coercing her or any person related to her to meet any unlawful demand for any property or valuable security or is on account of failure by her or any person related to her to meet such demand.

It has come in the testimony of both the witnesses of fact namely Pankaj Kumar Singh PW-1 and Smt. Radhika Singh PW-2 that her daughter used to tell them about harassment and torture meted out to her at the hands of her in-laws for non-fulfillment of dowry demand. In this way factum of harassment also stands proved. Thus, death of the deceased Seema as we discussed above admittedly took place within 7 years of her marriage with Varunendra Kumar Singh (husband) and she was subjected to cruelty and harassment soon before her death repeatedly by her husband and in-laws in connection with demand for dowry stands proved against the present appellants.

Thus each and every essential ingredient of Section 304B IPC and 498A IPC has been proved by the prosecution satisfactorily and the evidence on record profusely establishes the same beyond reasonable doubt. The persistent demand of dowry has been proved to have occurred after marriage, therefore, demand of dowry subsequent to marriage is also well proved and is punishable as such under Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. Entirety of the prosecution testimony on record also reveals that the case of the prosecution regarding dowry demand, and causing of dowry death stands established and proved against the accused persons.

We may also take note of contention raised on behalf of the appellants that in case this Court comes to the conclusion that charges against the appellants under Section 304B, 498A IPC and 4 Dowry Prohibition Act are found to have been proved, then they should be given some latitude on point of quantum of sentence, as the sentence awarded by the trial court is not proportionate to the alleged crime. Several circumstances have been placed before us for consideration, which we will discuss when the context so requires.

In the final count, we find that the charges under Sections 498A, 304B IPC and under Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act have been reasonably proved and the suggestion by defence in regard to commission of suicide committed by the deceased Seema has neither any relevance nor any force under prevailing facts and circumstances of the case. Therefore, we see every reason to concur with the finding of conviction recorded against the appellants by the trial court vide its judgment and order dated 16.12.2005 under aforesaid sections of IPC and Section 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961.

On sentencing point, as discussed above, some contention has been raised that the sentence awarded against the appellants is disproportionate to the offence committed and the same may be modified in the interest of justice. In this regard, submission raised on behalf of the appellants need be mentioned.

Firstly; the husband of deceased Varunendra Kumar Singh has been declared juvenile, as he claimed juvenility and has been given benefit thereof by sending him to the Juvenile Justice Board, Varanasi on sentencing point, secondly, the other accused persons and particularly the present appellants- Trivendra Kumar Singh (Jeth), Smt. Minto (Jethani), Smt. Vidya Devi (mother-in-law) and Samar Bahadur Singh (father-in-law) bear and stand in different relationship with the deceased Seema Devi, whose role is distinguishable from the husband, as they are distant relative, and they cannot be said to be direct beneficiaries of dowry demand, had it been fulfilled. Thirdly, may be that, the role of Samar Bahadur Singh (father-in-law) and Smt. Vidya Dev (mother-in-law) would assume greater responsibility for demanding dowry but Trivendra Kumar Singh (Jeth) and Smt. Minto ( Jethani) would not have been beneficiary in the event of fulfillment of dowry demand.

More so, in this case it was exclusively upto the husband to have taken care of his wife and could have refused to bow down to the insolent behavior of Samar Bahadur Singh (father-in-law) and Smt. Vidya Devi (mother-in-law), if they insisted for any demand of dowry. Therefore, role of Samar Bahadur Singh (father-in-law) and Smt. Vidya Devi (mother-in-law) under the facts and circumstances of the case is placed at different footing with the two other co-accused, namely, Trivendra Kumar Singh (Jeth) and Smt. Minto (Jethani).

We have given our thoughtful consideration to entirety of facts and circumstances, as appearing and proved in this case and also taken note of respective position of each appellant and the nature of offence. No doubt, the husband has primary responsibility to take care of his wife and his case can be distinguished, from all other co-accused persons of this case.

In this case, we also notice that Samar Bahadur Singh (father-in-law) was an employed person and a police constable and was earning member of his family. In such a family set up like that of the present appellants we cannot not resist factual reality and strong reason for believing that dowry demand would have directly benefited husband of deceased- Varunendra Kumar Singh rather than the appellants. Therefore, the present appellants cannot be said to be direct beneficiary of dowry demand, if fulfilled.

In this view of the matter, sentence of life imprisonment awarded by the trial court against aforesaid four appellants under Section 304B IPC appears to be disproportionate to the offence proved (304B IPC), under particular facts and circumstances of the case and the respective positions held by Samar Bahadur Singh (father-in-law) and Smt. Vidya Devi (mother-in-law) vis-a-vis position of Trivendra Kumar Singh (Jeth) and Smt. Minto- Jethani of deceased Seema. We find it just and appropriate to modify/alter sentence of life imprisonment awarded against all the four appellants to the period of 10 years rigorous imprisonment each for Samar Bahadur Singh (father-in-law) and Smt. Vidya Devi (mother-in-law) and further 7 years rigorous imprisonment each for Trivendra Kumar Singh (jeth) and Smt. Minto (Jethani), as that would meet the ends of justice.

Rest of the sentence imposed by the trial court on all the appellants for offences under Section 498A IPC and Section 4 Dowry Prohibition Act is justified and is proportionate to the offence committed in the wake of facts and circumstances of this case, as such requires no interference by us. Accordingly, the sentencing part of the impugned judgment stands modified to the extent aforesaid.

In view of above churning of the facts and circumstances and evidence on record, the present appeal is liable to be allowed partly on point of quantum of sentence only i.e., confined to (Section 304B IPC), while maintaining the conviction and sentence of the present appellants passed by the trial court for charges under Section 498A IPC and under Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961. Accordingly, this appeal is allowed partly in the terms aforesaid.

All the aforesaid sentences to run concurrently.

It is obvious that the imprisonment part of sentence has been suffered by Samar Bahadur Singh, however, sentence of fine, as imposed by the trial court, if not deposited, shall be dealt with in accordance with law. However it is directed that the period of detention suffered by Samar Bahadur Singh which is found to be exceeding 10 years period in jail, then the sentence of fine shall be liable to be adjusted in proportion to the period exceeding 10 years incarceration. If it is found that Samar Bahadur Singh has suffered entire sentence imposed upon him then he shall be set free forthwith if not wanted in connection with any other case. Rest of the appellants Smt. Vidya Devi (mother-in-law), Trivendra Kumar Singh (Jeth), Smt. Minto (Jethani) are on bail. Their personal bonds are cancelled and sureties are discharged. They shall be taken into custody forthwith to serve out the remaining part of their respective sentences.

Let a copy of this order be certified to the concerned trial court for its intimation and follow up action.

Dt.14 .09.2016

RK