Panna Lal And Another vs State Of U.P.
2021 Latest Caselaw 3186 ALL

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
 

AFR
 
[RESERVED]
 
                                                                                     on  25.1.2021
 
Delivered on 8.3.2021 
 
In Chamber 
 

 
Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 7876 of 2017
 

 
Appellant :- Panna Lal And Another
 
Respondent :- State of U.P.
 
Counsel for Appellant :- Arun Kumar Tripathi,Ashwini Kumar Awasthi,Atharva Dixit
 
Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.
 

 
Connected with:
 

 
Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 7877 of 2017
 

 
Appellant :- Bhure Lal Alias Shyam Manohar
 
Respondent :- State of U.P.
 
Counsel for Appellant :- Arun Kumar Tripathi,Ashwini Kumar Awasthi,Atharva Dixit,Sanjeev Kumar Pandey
 
Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.
 

 
Hon'ble Subhash Chand,J.

1. The instant Criminal Appeal No. 7876 of 2017 has been preferred on behalf of the appellant Panna Lal and another and Criminal Appeal No. 7877 of 2017 has been preferred on behalf of Bhure Lal alias Shyam Manohar against the judgment and order dated 1.12.2017 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court No. 1, Mainpuri in Special Trial No. 136 of 2004 (State Vs. Pannal Lal and others) arising out of Case Crime No. 106 of 2001 P.S. Bhogaon, District-Mainpuri whereby the appellants were convicted and sentenced for the offence under section 304-B of I.P.C and were punished with imprisonment of 10 years each and for the offence under section 498-A were convicted and punished with imprisonment of 3 years and a fine of Rs. 5,000/- each and in default of payment of fine additional imprisonment of six months was awarded to be undergone. For the offence under section 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act each of the accused was convicted and sentenced with imprisonment of six months and a fine of Rs. 2,000/- and in default of payment of fine the additional imprisonment of one month was awarded to be undergone.

2. Both the aforesaid appeals are against the judgment and order dated 1.12.2017, therefore, both the appeals are disposed of by the common judgment.

3. The brief facts giving rise to both these appeals are that the informant Ram Singh, son of Munshi, resident of village Semalpur, P.S. Vishunpur, District Kannauj moved the written information with the police station concerned with the allegations that on 29th March 2001 at 5.00 O'clock he received the information in his village that his daughter Anita had been killed by hanging by her in-laws. He reached to village Shivai and saw his daughter hanged with Sari and her father-in-law, mother-in-law and his son-in-law were absconding from the house. His daughter was got married about 3 years back and endowment was made by him at the time of marriage as per capacity; but the father-in-law and mother-in-law being not satisfied, made additional demand of Gold Chain, T.V., and Almirah in dowry. The informant was not capable to fulfill these demands, consequently his daughter was subjected to cruelty and due to this reason his daughter was killed and the body was hanged. On this written information the case crime no. 106 of 2001 was registered under section 498-A, 304-B of IPC and 3/4 D.P. Act with the Police Station Bhogaon, District-Mainpuri.The Investigating Officer after having concluded the investigation filed charge sheet against all the accused persons under sections 498-A,304-B and ¾ D.P. Act on which the cognizance was taken by the Chief Judicial Magistrate and after considering that the offence is triable by the court of sessions, the case was committed by the CJM concerned to the court of sessions for trial.

4. The trial court summoned all the accused persons and framed charges against all the accused persons under sections 304-B, 498-A of IPC and ¾ D.P. Act and the alternate charge under section 302 IPC was also framed against all the accused persons. The charge was read over and explained to all the accused persons who denied the charge and claimed to be tried.

5. On behalf of prosecution to prove the charge against all the accused persons in documentary evidence adduced written information, Exb. Ka-1, Marriage card, Exb. Ka-2,Site plan of place of occurrence, Exb. Ka-3, Charge sheet against Panna Lal and Smt. Maya Devi @ Mayawati, Exb. Ka-4, Charge sheet against Bhure Lal @ Shyam Manohar, Exb. Ka-5, Inquest report, Exb.Ka-6, letter to Chief Medical Officer, Exb. Ka-7, Specimen seal, Exb. Ka-8, letter to RI, Exb. Ka-9, Photo Nas, Exb. Ka-10, Post mortem report, Exb. Ka-11 and check FIR, Exb. Ka-11-A.

In ocular evidence examined PW-1, Ram Singh, PW-2, Ganesh, PW-3, Hukum Singh, PW-4 Lala Ram, PW-5, Om Prakash, Naib Tehsildar, PW-6 Retired Doctor S.K. Seth, PW-7, Krishna Kumar Chaturvedi.

6. The statement of accused persons under section 313 of Cr.P.C was recorded. All the accused persons denied the incriminating circumstances in evidence against them and stated that deceased had no issue, with this reason, she was mentally disturbed and consequently had committed suicide. On behalf of Panna Lal and Smt. Maya Devi @ Mayawati it was also stated that both of them were residing separate from their son Bhure lal @ Shyam Manohar.

7. On behalf of accused persons in defence evidence examined DW-1, Bhoj Raj and DW-2, Ram Kishan.

8. Trial court after hearing the submissions of learned counsel for both the parties had convicted all the accused persons vide judgment and order dated 1.12.2017 for the offence under sections 304-B, 498-A of IPC and section 4 of D.P. Act and sentenced as stated above.

9. Aggrieved with this impugned judgment the Criminal Appeal No. 7876 of 2017 was preferred on behalf of the appellants Panna Lal and Smt. Maya Devi @ Mayawati and Criminal Appeal No. 7877 of 2017 was preferred on behalf of the appellant Bhure Lal @ Shyam Manohar on the grounds that the impugned judgment and conviction order passed by the court below is against the weight of the material evidence on record and the impugned judgment and order is bad in the eyes of law. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case as well as the evidence available on record, the punishment awarded by the court below is too severe. Accordingly, prayed to allow these criminal appeals and set aside the impugned judgment and order of conviction.

10. I have heard the submissions of learned counsel for the appellants and learned AGA for the State and perused the relevant materials brought on record.

11. Learned counsel for the appellants has submitted that the allegations made in the FIR in regard to alleged demand of dowry are general in nature. There is no evidence in regard to harassment caused to the deceased for non fulfillment of alleged demand of dowry. In inquest report there is no whisper in regard to alleged demand of dowry. As per autopsy report the cause of death of deceased was asphyxia as a result of ante mortem hanging. There is no external injury on any part of the body. Hyoid bone is intact. It was a case of suicide committed by the deceased herself who was disturbed because of having no issue. From the evidence on record no offence under section 304-B of IPC is made out against the accused persons. As per prosecution case the marriage was solemnized 3 years before the date of occurrence. There is no evidence in regard to exact date of marriage. In fact, the marriage of deceased was solemnized in the year 1993 and 7 years had elapsed from the date of occurrence. Moreover, the appellant Panna Lal and Smt. Maya Devi @ Mayawati both father-in-law and mother-in-law respectively of deceased were residing separate from their son Bhure Lal @ Shyam Manohar. On behalf of accused persons this defence case was also put to all prosecution witnesses in cross examination and the defence evidence was also adduced. Moreover, all the accused persons in their statement under section 313 of Cr.P.C., have taken this plea of separate living of father-in-law and mother-in-law from their son and also the plea of committing suicide of deceased herself on account of being disturbed because of no issue to herself.

Learned counsel for the appellants has further submitted that there is no evidence on record in regard to harassment for non-fulfillment of demand of dowry soon before the death. Moreover no proper opportunity of the hearing was afforded to the appellants on the quantum of sentence in view of section 235(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code.

In support of these submissions learned counsel for the appellants has relied upon the following case laws:-

(1) Dagdu and Others Vs. State of Maharastra (1977) 3 SCC 68;

(2) Shamnsaheb M. Multtani Vs. State of Karnataka (2001) 2 SCC 577;

(3) Kans Raj Vs. State of Punjab and others (2000) 5 SCC 207;

(4) Pathan Hussain Basha Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh (2012) 8 SCC 594; and

(5) Hira Lal and others Vs. State (Govt. of NCT), Delhi (2003) 8 SCC 80.

12. Learned AGA on behalf of State per contra submitted that the impugned judgment of conviction and sentence passed by the court below is based on the proper appreciation of evidence on record and passed the proper judgment which bears no illegality. Moreover, the accused persons were afforded complete opportunity of hearing by the court below on the quantum of sentence.

13. On behalf of prosecution to prove its case in ocular evidence examined PW-1 Ram Singh, PW-2 Ganesh, PW-3 Hukum Singh as witness of the fact.

PW-1 Ram Singh is the informant and the father of the deceased. This witness in his statement says that his daughter Anita was married with Bhure Lal @ Shyam Manohar about 3 years ago from the date of occurrence in the year 1998. The father-in-law and mother-in-law and husband of his daughter made additional demand of dowry of Gold Chain, T.V, and Almirah and for non fulfillment of the same his daughter was subjected to cruelty. His daughter used to make complaint of the same to him and her mother. His daughter Anita also made complaint of the same to his son also. On the occasion of Holi on the very year of the occurrence he has gone to the in-laws house of his daughter and asked them not to torture his daughter for the alleged demand of dowry but on this, reiterated the aforesaid demand of dowry. After that he left the in-laws house of his daughter and on 29.3.2001 he received information from Dharmendra Singh, son of Suraj Singh of village Bhadaura at 5- O clock that his daughter had been killed by her in-laws. On this information he reached along with family members to village Sevai and saw the dead body of his daughter hanged with the Sari with the hook of Veranda. He moved the written information with the police station concerned Exb. Ka-2. He also gave the invitation card of marriage to the Investigating Officer which is Exb. Ka-2. He was also the witness of the inquest report. The dead body of his daughter was got down from the hook of Varandah by Darogaji. Many persons of the locality were present there. Panna Lal and Bhure Lal @ Shyam Manohar were not residing separately. It is wrong to say that his daughter committed suicide because of having no issue to her.

PW-2 Ganesh is the real brother of the deceased. This witness in his statement says that his sister was married 3 years before the date of occurrence with Bhure Lal @ Shyam Manohar. Whenever, his sister had come from her in-laws house to parental house, she told in regard to demand of Gold Chain, T.V., Almirah and also told that all the accused persons had beated her for non fulfillment of the same demand. On receiving the information from Dharmendra Singh on 29.3.2001 accompanied his parents, his cousin brother Hukum Singh and Ram Shankar of the village to reach village Sevai to the in-laws house of his sister and saw the dead body of his sister hanged with Sari with the hook of balcony. The dead body was got down by Darogaji. It is wrong to say that his sister was mentally disturbed because of having no issue and committed suicide.

PW-3 Hukum Singh is the cousin brother of the deceased. He also gave the same kind of statement as that of PW-1 Ram Singh and PW-2 Ganesh and corroborated the prosecution story. This witness also stated that the complaint in regard to the demand of dowry and subjecting to cruelty to Anita was made by Anita to her parents in his presence. Anita has all to say, told in regard to alleged demand of dowry to him about two months ago from the date of occurrence when she had come to her parental house. It is wrong to say that Anita along with her husband resided separate from Panna Lal in another house.

14. On behalf of prosecution to prove the cause of death and papers relating to inquest report examined PW-5 Om Prakash, Naib Tehsildar proved the inquest report Ka-6 and papers relating to inquest report Exb. K-7 to Ka-10. This witness in his statement also says that all the panch witnesses have told him that the death of the deceased was caused by hanging her with Sari with the hook of balcony.

15. To prove the autopsy report of deceased examined PW-6 retired Doctor S.K. Seth. This witness in his statement proves the post mortem report of the deceased Exb.Ka-11 and says that the cause of death of deceased is asphyxia as a result of ante mortem hanging and ante mortem injury ligature mark 30.0 cm x 3.0 cm on around neck except on right side where it is intercepted behind right ear mark is obliquely placed following the line of mandable. The hyoid bone was intact (not broken).

16. At this stage provision of section 304-B of IPC read with section 113-B of the Evidence Act is necessary to be considered.

Section 304-B of IPC reads as under:-

304-B. 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 yeas 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 of 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) same meaning as in section 2 of the Dowry Prohibition.

(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."

The Hon'ble Apex Court has indicated the ingredients of section 304-B of IPC in the following cases as under:-

1. Pawan Kumar Vs. State of Haryana (1998) 3 SCC 309 para-6;

2. Kans Raj Vs. State of Punjab (2000) 5 SCC 207 para-9:

3. Heera Lal Vs. State (Govt. Of NCT), Delhi (2003) 8 SCC 80 para-8; and

4. Bakhsish Ram Vs. state of Punjab (2013) 4 SCC 131 para-14.

(A) that the married women had died otherwise than normal circumstances;

(B) As the death was within 7 years of marriage; and

(c) the prosecution has established that there was cruelty or harassment by her husband or near relative of her husband in connection with demand of dowry soon before the death.

17. The Hon'ble apex Court held in Suresh Kumar Vs. State of Haryana (2013) 16 SCC 553 in para 27 that any death occurring otherwise than under normal circumstances can be homicidal, suicidal or accidental.

18. The Hon'ble Apex Court held in Sher @ Pratap Vs. State of Haryana AIR 2015 SC 980 held the word "soon" before death not to be interpreted in terms of six months or year but it is necessary to indicate domain of dowry should not be stale. It should be continuing because of death under section 304-B of IPC.

19. The Hon'ble Apex Court also held in Satyaveer Singh Vs. State of Punjab AIR 2001 SC 2828 held that there should be nexus between death of wife and the dowry related to harassment inflicted on her.

20. The Hon'ble Apex court held in Devi Lal Vs. State of Rajasthan (2009) 1 SCC (Criminal) 785 under section 304-B "soon" before death depends upon the facts and circumstances of each case.

21. The Hon'ble Apex Court held in State of Andhra Pradesh Vs. Raj Gopal Asawa AIR 2004 SCW1566 the definition of dowry is not restricted to agreement or demand for payment of dowry before or at the time of marriage; but also includes demand made subsequent to marriage.

22. The Hon'ble Apex Court in Suresh Kumar (Supra) in para 30 held if the ingredients of section 304-B of IPC are made out, the accused is deemed to have caused the death of women; the accused is entitled to rebut this statutory presumption of having caused death. The presumption under section 113-B is the presumption of law which is mandatory.

23. The Hon'ble Apex Court also held in Suresh Kumar (Supra) in para 34 a Bench of three Judges of this Court has elucidated the requirement of section 304-B of IPC read with section 113-B of the Evidence Act and contrasted it with section 113-A of the Evidence Act in paras 27 to 30 in Shamnsaheb M. Multtani (Supra) held that if the ingredients of section 304-B of IPC are made out, the court has no option but to presume that the accused has caused the dowry death unless the accused disapproves it. It is a statutory compulsion of the Court. However, the accused has to be rebut it. He can discharge this burden either by elucidating answers. through the cross examination of prosecution witness or by adducing defence evidence or by both.

Section 113-A of the Evidence Act says that in almost similar conditions of dowry death the court may presume having regard to the circumstances of the case that as the suicide has been abeted by his husband or the relative of the husband.

24. The provisions of Section 113-B of the Evidence Act are relevant to mention herein below:-

"113B. Presumption as to dowry death:-

When the question is whether a person has committed the dowry death of a woman and it is shown that soon before her death such woman has been subjected by such person to cruelty or harassment for, or in connection, any demand for dowry, the court shall presume that such person had caused the dowry death."

25. As per prosecution case the daughter of the informant Anita was married with Bhure Lal @ Shyam Manohar in 1998, three years ago from the date of occurrence. In this regard in documentary evidence invitation card of marriage Exb. Ka-2 has been proved by PW-1 Ram Singh. In this marriage invitation card the date of marriage is shown as 28.4.1998. The name of bride is Anita, daughter of Ram Singh Rajpoot, resident of Semalpur, Amaltabad (Kannauj) and the name of bridegroom is Shyam Manohar son of Panna Lal, resident of Rewai (Mainpuri). All the three witnesses of fact PW-1 Ram Singh, PW-2 Ganesh, PW-2 Hukum Singh who are father, real brother and cousin brother stated that Anita was married with Bhure Lal @ Shyam Manohar before three years ago on the date of occurrence.

On behalf of the accused persons this plea has been raised by giving suggestion to the prosecution witness that the deceased was married with Bhure Lal @ Shyam Manohar in 1993 more than 7 years ago from the date of occurrence. This plea is also taken by all the accused persons in their statement under section 313 of Cr.P.C.

On behalf of defence the defence witnesses DW-1 Bhoj Raj and DW-2 Ram Kishan also say that the accused Bhure Lal was married with Anita in the year 1993. In view of the ocular evidence adduced on behalf of prosecution and also the documentary evidence marriage invitation card of Smt. Anita it is proved that the marriage of Smt. Anita and Bhure Lal @ Shyam Manohar had solemnized on 28.4.1998. The marriage invitation card is not questioned by the defence counsel in the cross examination from the prosecution witness, as such, on this point the balance of the evidence tilts in favour of the prosecution. On behalf of the accused persons no documentary evidence has been adduced to rebut the date of marriage being 28.4.1998.

26. So far as the death of deceased Anita is concerned, from the ocular evidence as well the medical evidence itself well proved that the death of Anita was not caused in normal circumstances, rather it was homicidal or suicidal.

All the prosecution witnesses have deposed the evidence that the death of Anita was homicidal. As per medical evidence DW-6 Dr. S.K. Seth says that the cause of death was asphyxia as a result of ante mortem hanging. This witness also says that the ligature mark was 30.0 cm. X 3.0 cm around the neck. This mark was obliquely placed following the line of mandable. This ligature mark was not in V shape to establish the cause of suicide. So far as the hyoid bone being intact is concerned, PW-6 in his statement deposed that trachea was congested. The bloodfroth was in trachea. This witness in his cross examination says that he has not written the cause of death in post mortem report throttling or strangulation because death was caused due to hanging.

In inquest report the cause of death as per the information of panch witnesses has been mentioned asphyxia due to hanging with the Sari by the hook of balcony.

PW-5 Om Prakash, Naib Tehsildar proves the inquest report and the papers of the inquest report and also says that all the Panch have stated to him that the body of the deceased was hanged with the hook of balcony tied with Sari, as such, the death of deceased Anita was an unnatural death. It was not a death of normal circumstances.

27. So far as the demand of dowry and non fulfillment of the same causing cruelty to deceased soon before the death is concerned, all the witnesses have stated that the accused persons had made demand of Gold Chain, T.V., and Almirah after solemnizing the marriage and for non fulfillment of the same Anita was subjected to cruelty. All these witnesses have stated whenever Anita had visited her parental house from her in-laws house she has made complaint in regard to making alleged dowry by her in-laws and had told in regard to the same to PW-1 Ram Singh, PW-2 Ganesh, PW-3 Hukum Singh who are father, real brother and cousin brother of the deceased respectively. PW-1 Ram Singh has also stated at one instance at the occasion of Holi in the very year of occurrence, when he had visited the in-laws house of her daughter and asked her in-laws not to harass and torture her daughter for the alleged demand of Gold Chain, T.V and Almirah. All the accused persons refused to desist of their demand of dowry. This witness also says that he has shown his incapability to fulfill the aforesaid demand and left his daughter in-laws house and thereafter on 30.3.2001 he received information from Dharmendra Singh who told him that his daughter has been killed by her in-laws. This fact is also corroborated with the opinion of Panch witnesses in the inquest report.

28. It is pertinent to mention here that in the inquest report among all the Panch witnesses none is from the in-laws side. This entry in the inquest report also corroborates the ocular evidence in regard to absconding of inmates of in-laws house. This subsequent conduct of the inmates of in-laws house being not present at the place of occurrence, more so, when the dead body of Anita was hanged with hook of balcony tied with Sari becomes relevant to prove the guilty mind of the inmates of in-laws house. This subsequent conduct of the inmates of in-laws house is relevant under section 8 of the Evidence Act.

29. Therefore, the prosecution has been successful to prove this fact that the death of deceased Anita took place in matrimonial house within 7 years of marriage was unnatural. There is also evidence that soon before the death there was demand of Gold Chain, T.V. Almirah and for non fulfillment of the same deceased was subjected to cruelty and harassment. If for the sake of argument, death of deceased is taken to be suicidal,the possibility of demand of dowry and non fulfillment of the same, subjecting the deceased for cruelty and harassment can not be ruled out. The death of deceased whether homicidal or suicidal has a nexus with the harassment and cruelty connected with the demand of dowry. As such, all the ingredients of section 304-B of I.P.C., are made out. From the evidence on record and legal presumption of law which is mandatory shall be taken against the accused persons in regard to committing dowry death.

30. This statutory mandatory presumption under section 113-B of the Evidence Act is rebutable. The burden of proof shifts upon the accused persons to disprove that it was not a dowry death.

31. On behalf of accused persons in their statement under section 313 Cr.P.C., this plea has been taken that Panna Lal and Smt. Maya Devi @ Mayawati who are father-in-law and mother-in-law of the deceased both were residing separate from their son Bhure Lal @ Shyam Manohar and this plea is also taken that deceased was having no issue therefore she was mentally disturbed, for the same reason, she committed suicide. On behalf of defence counsel of the accused persons this suggestion was also given to all the prosecution witnesses that deceased was having no issue was disturbed and sad and consequently she committed suicide. The suggestion of separate living of Panna Lal and Smt. Maya Devi @ Mayawati has been given by the defence counsel to all the prosecution witnesses.

32. On behalf of the accused persons to rebut this presumption in defence evidence have been examined DW-1 Bhoj Raj in his statement says after two years of marriage Pannal Lal began to reside separate with his son Bhure Lal @ Shyam Manohar. Anita had no issue, so her temper was irritating and she committed suicide. This witness also says that at the time of occurrence he was at his agricultural field and was not present at the place of occurrence.

PW-2 Ram Kishan in his statement says that Bhure Lal @ Shyam Manohar along with his wife had been residing separate after two years of marriage with his parents. Anita had no issue, so she had become ill temper and with this reason she committed suicide.

33. So far as defence plea of separate living of Panna Lal and Smt. Maya Devi @ Mayawati, father-in-law and mother-in-law respectively is concerned, this plea has been taken by the accused persons in their statement under 313 Cr.P.C., and had also elicited to all the prosecution witnesses during cross examination. Both the defence witnesses DW-1 Bhoj Raj and DW-2 Ram Kishan had deposed this fact.

34. But so far as this plea that deceased for having no issue was ill tempered and had committed suicide is not found cogent and trust-worthy. As per prosecution evidence the deceased was married with Bhure Lal @ Shyam Manohar 3 years ago from the date of occurrence. If after solemnization of marriage deceased was not conceived and she was disturbed for having no issue, under such circumstances, deceased might have consulted some Gynecologist in regard to treatment of having no issue. As of man ordinary prudence her husband might have taken her to some doctor, more so, if her condition was so depressed that she had become ill tempered for having no issue. No such documentary evidence in regard to treatment of having no issue and consultant prescription in regarding to having no issue had been adduced on behalf of the accused persons which would have been the best evidence in their possession to prove this plea. Under such situation, the ocular evidence adduced on behalf of the defence can not be relied upon on the touch stone of preponderance of possibilities.

35. Here it is also noteworthy that in view of defence evidence the father-in-law and mother-in-law of the deceased were residing separate from their son and so far as the alleged demand of dowry of Gold Chain, T.V., and Almirah is concerned, the direct beneficiary of this demand was the husband of the deceased, as such, the burden to proof will shift upon the husband of the deceased to disprove the legal presumption of dowry death. The husband of the deceased Bhure Lal @ Shyam Manohar has miserably failed to discharge the burden of rebutting the the mandatory statutory presumption of dowry death against him.

The Punjab and Haryana High Court in Bhateri Devi Vs. State of Haryana 2011 (Crl.) 463 held that husband is the beneficiary in case of dowry demand, hence he is liable for dowry death and is to give explanation as to why the death occurred.

36. Learned counsel for the appellants has also submitted that the trial court has imposed the sentence of 10 yeas for the offence under sections 304-B of IPC without recording any reason and without affording any opportunity of hearing to the appellants convict on the quantum of sentence.

Section 304-B of IPC provides minimum sentence for 10 years and the maximum sentence may be extended upto life imprisonment. The trial court has awarded the sentence of 10 years for the offence under section 304-B of IPC which is less than the maximum as provided under section 304-B of IPC.

So far as the opportunity of hearing under section 235 (2) of Cr.P.C., is concerned, the trial court had given opportunity of hearing to the convict on the quantum of sentence and it was argued on behalf of the convicts that it is the first offence of the accused persons and have no criminal antecedent and accused is a young person and none is to look after his old parents and after taking into consideration the statements made by the counsel of convicts and also Additional District Government Counsel for the prosecution the trial court passed the order of sentence after having recorded reasons for the same. Therefore, this plea raised on behalf of learned counsel for the appellant is not sustainable in law and the same is discarded.

37. In view of re-appreciation of the evidence on record the judgment and order of conviction of the accused Panna Lal and Smt. Maya Devi @ Mayawati for the offence under section 304-B,498-A and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act deserves to be set aside. Accordingly, the Criminal Appeal No. 7876 of 2017 (Panna Lal and another Vs. State of U.P.) is hereby allowed. The appellants Panna Lal and Smt. Maya Devi @ Mayawati are hereby acquitted from the charges levelled against them under section 304-B,498-A and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act. The personal bonds and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned in compliance of provisions of section 437-A of Cr.P.C, be furnished by them before the trial court.

38. So far as the Criminal Appeal No. 7877 of 2017 is concerned, in this appeal the appellant Bhure Lal @ Shyam Manohar is the husband of the deceased, whose liability is to protect and save the life and liberty of his wife but the appellant has failed to do so, therefore, the present appeal lacks merit and deserves to be dismissed. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed. The conviction and sentence awarded to the present appellant is hereby affirmed. The appellant is in jail. He is directed to serve out the remaining sentence as has been awarded by the trial court by judgment and order dated 1.12.2017.

39. Let the copy of the judgment/order be certified to the court concerned for necessary information and follow up action.

Dated:8.3.2021                                             (Subhash Chand, J.) 
 
SKS