JUDGMENT : Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia, J. 1. Case before us is a strange case where the trial court by throwing the rule of caution to wind, had not formulated charge against the accused for offence under Section 304B IPC. The court below had formulated three charges against appellants husband Hanuman Sahai and mother-in-law Smt. Naina Devi for offences under Sections 302, 498A and 120B IPC. 2. The first charge framed against the accused stated that they on 24.9.2009 at about 6.46 PM caused death of Radha Devi in their house and thus, committed offence under Section 302 IPC. The second charge framed against both the accused was that they harassed and inflicted cruelty upon Radha Devi w/o Hanuman Sahai and daughter-in-law of Naina Devi for demand of dowry and thus, committed offence under Section 498A IPC. The third charge stated that accused Hanuman Sahai and Naina Devi conspired with Ramjilal to cause death of Radha Devi. 3. We are informed that Chhotulal, father-in-law, and Sita, sister-in-law, were not apprehended and were declared proclaimed offenders. They were subsequently tried and were acquitted by the trial court for offences under Section 302/120B IPC. However, they were convicted for offence under Section 498A IPC. 4. After formulation of above charges, the Court of Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track) No. 1, Jaipur District, Jaipur proceeded with the trial against husband Hanuman Sahai, mother-in-law Naina Devi and neighbour Ramjilal. The trial court vide impugned judgment dated 18.8.2010 acquitted Ramjilal neighbour for offences under Sections 498A/120B and 302/120B IPC, Hanuman Sahai and Naina Devi for offence under Section 120B IPC were also acquitted. However, the trial court convicted husband Hanuman Sahai and mother-in-law Naina Devi for causing death of Radha Devi for offences under Sections 302/34 and 498A IPC. The trial court vide separate order of even date had sentenced the accused appellants as under:-- "U/s. 498A IPC: Two years rigorous imprisonment, to pay a fine of Rs. 1000/- and in default thereof to undergo two months rigorous imprisonment each. U/s. 302/34 IPC: Life imprisonment, to pay a fine of Rs. 500/- and in default thereof to undergo one month rigorous imprisonment each. Sentences awarded to the accused-appellants were ordered to run concurrently." 5. Aggrieved against their conviction and sentence, Hanuman Sahai husband and Naina Devi mother-in-law have preferred the present appeal. 6. U/s. 302/34 IPC: Life imprisonment, to pay a fine of Rs. 500/- and in default thereof to undergo one month rigorous imprisonment each. Sentences awarded to the accused-appellants were ordered to run concurrently." 5. Aggrieved against their conviction and sentence, Hanuman Sahai husband and Naina Devi mother-in-law have preferred the present appeal. 6. Criminal proceedings in the present case were set into motion on the basis of written report (Ex. P.1) submitted by Faili Ram (P.W.1) grandfather of deceased Radha to Circle Inspector Shiv Kumar Bharadwaj (P.W.12) who on 25.9.2009 was posted as SHO, Police Station Bassi. On the basis of written report (Ex. P.1), formal FIR (Ex. P.10) bearing FIR No. 515/09 was registered at Police Station Bassi, District Jaipur for offences under Sections 498A, 304B IPC. 7. Faili Ram (P.W.1) in his written report (Ex. P.1) stated that his grand-daughter Radha was married with Hanuman Sahai Kumhar S/o. Chhote Lal on 5th of December, 2002. Gauna ceremony was performed after five years of marriage. During her stay in matrimonial home, Radha used to visit her parental house. Whenever she visited she used to complain that her in-laws including mother-in-law, father-in-law, sister-in-law and husband used to ill-treat her and demand dowry. It was stated in the written report (Ex. P.1) that two months before her death when Radha came to her parental house, she wept and disclosed that in-laws are demanding motorcycle. It is stated that sometime before death when Chhotelal father-in-law came to take back Radha from parental house to matrimonial home, he had asked mother of Radha to satisfy the demand conveyed through Radha. It is stated that on 24.9.2009 in the evening at about 6.46 PM an information was relayed on mobile phone of brother of Radha by Ramjilal Sharma Sanjhi (partner for sharing crop) that Radha is in coma and therefore, they should come immediately to attend her. It is stated that when they reached Bassi, family members of Radha made a telephonic call asking about the hospital where Radha was admitted. It is averred in the written report (Ex. P.1) that when questioned, accused had informed that Radha is admitted in Bassi Government Hospital and when complainant party went to Bassi Government Hospital, they found to the contrary, Radha was not found admitted in the hospital. It is averred in the written report (Ex. P.1) that when questioned, accused had informed that Radha is admitted in Bassi Government Hospital and when complainant party went to Bassi Government Hospital, they found to the contrary, Radha was not found admitted in the hospital. On further inquiry they were asked to come to matrimonial home of Radha where they found Radha dead and blood was oozing from her mouth, nose and ears. 8. Prosecution in all had examined thirteen witnesses. 9. P.W.1 Faili Ram is grandfather of deceased Radha. He has reiterated the allegations of demand of dowry, harassment caused to his grand-daughter by the accused alongwith father-in-law Chhotulal and sister-in-law Sita. In his testimony Faili Ram (P.W.1) further deposed that Radha was subjected to cruelty, she was fed-up with the accused as they were demanding motorcycle and other articles in dowry. 10. To lend corroboration to Faili Ram (P.W.1) grandfather, P.W.2 Mangal Ram uncle (Taya in relation)), P.W.3 Sita Ram another uncle (Taya in relation), P.W.4 Kanhaiya Lal Prajapati (father), P.W.8 Bhoori Devi (mother) and P.W.10 Mukesh (brother) of deceased respectively have stepped into Witness Box. 11. It will be pertinent to highlight that in the present case, there is no eye-witness to the occurrence. Only relations of the deceased have been examined to say that she was subjected to maltreatment, harassment and cruelty at the instance of the accused as they were demanding dowry. Out of total thirteen witnesses examined by the prosecution, six witnesses are close relations of the deceased. 12. For us, testimony of Ghanshyam Das (P.W.5), a neighbour of Chhotulal co-accused, is very material and important. 13. Ghanshyam Das (P.W.5) in court has stated that Chhotulal father of Hanuman Sahai appellant is his neighbour. He has two sons namely Hanuman and Murari. Hanuman was married in Nangal 6-7 years ago. The witness stated that on 24.9.2009 Radha had consumed poison. Her condition had deteriorated. He had taken her alongwith relations of husband in a Tractor. Radha had become unconscious and from her mouth froth was coming. Thus, Ghanshyam Das is an independent witness. He has stated that when immediately Radha was attended, froth was coming from her mouth. 14. Neighbour Gangu Lal (P.W.9) in court has deposed that on the day of occurrence he heard that Radha daughter-in-law of Chhotelal had consumed poison. He further stated that Ramjilal and Chhotulal were staying separate. 15. Thus, Ghanshyam Das is an independent witness. He has stated that when immediately Radha was attended, froth was coming from her mouth. 14. Neighbour Gangu Lal (P.W.9) in court has deposed that on the day of occurrence he heard that Radha daughter-in-law of Chhotelal had consumed poison. He further stated that Ramjilal and Chhotulal were staying separate. 15. Smt. Suman Choudhary (P.W.7) had conducted inquest proceedings and had partially investigated the case. 16. Ummed Singh (P.W.11) had carried two sealed packets to the Forensic Science Laboratory. 17. S.H.O. Shiv Kumar (P.W.12) had initially registered the case. 18. Mamta Vishnoi (P.W.13) stated that in October, 2009 she had taken charge of Police Station Bassi as Additional Superintendent of Police and investigation was assigned to her on 27.10.2009. She further stated that Chhotelal and Sita could not be arrested as they were absconding. Chargesheet was presented against Hanuman Sahai, Naina Devi and Ramjilal. 19. Thereafter statements of accused were recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. 20. Accused Hanuman has stated that Radha was never harassed on account of demand of dowry. He was a student of B.Sc. (Agriculture) at Udaipur University. On the day of occurrence he was taking industrial training by doing internship at Kisan Agro Industrial Area, Jaipur. 21. Accused Naina Devi in her statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. took a stand that the deceased was never harassed on account of demand of dowry. Since deceased was not able to bear a child, she remained depressed. 22. In defence, accused have examined ten witnesses. 23. Sitaram (D.W.1) has stated that he learnt that Radha had consumed poison. The witness stated that Ramjilal neighbour was falsely arrested as he refused to become witness for the complainant party. 24. To similar effect is statement given by Gulab Chand Sharma (D.W.2). 25. Mukesh Choudhary (D.W.3) has stated that accused Hanuman Sahai had undertaken industrial training with him at Jaipur. 26. Omprakash Meena (D.W.4) is another class fellow of Hanuman Sahai. He also deposed that accused husband of the deceased had undertaken industrial training alongwith him. 27. Rughnath (D.W.5) stated that on the day of occurrence, Radha was found unconscious and in a Tractor she was taken to doctor, later in Jeep she was taken to hospital. The witness stated that on the day of occurrence Hanuman Sahai was not in the village. 28. 27. Rughnath (D.W.5) stated that on the day of occurrence, Radha was found unconscious and in a Tractor she was taken to doctor, later in Jeep she was taken to hospital. The witness stated that on the day of occurrence Hanuman Sahai was not in the village. 28. We need not notice testimony of Gangadhar (D.W.6) and Ram Narain Yogi (D.W.7) as they have also stated that Hanuman Sahai was not present at the place of occurrence. 29. Hanuman Sahai himself appeared as D.W.8. He has also deposed that on the day of occurrence he was taking industrial training and since his wife was not able to bear the child, she was under treatment. 30. To similar effect is the statement made by appellant Naina Devi (D.W.9). 31. Dr. Deependra Singh (D.W.10) is owner of Kisan Agro Industries, RIICO Area, Jagatpura. He has also deposed regarding the fact that Hanuman Sahai on the day of occurrence was taking industrial training at Jobner. 32. At this stage, it is necessary for us to take note of medical evidence. 33. Dr. Bharti Meena (P.W.6) on 25.9.2009 being posted as Medical Officer at Community Health Center, Bassi had conducted autopsy on the dead body of deceased Radha. This witness has proved post mortem report (Ex. P.4). Dr. Bharti Meena (P.W.6) had noted that blood was oozing from both nostril and mouth. Puffiness was also present on the face and there was also bruise, 4 x 1.5 cm on left side of neck and at a distance of 1 cm another bruise 3 x 1.5 cm was also present. The witness stated that in the present case, pupil were fixed and dilated. This witness further stated that there was a fracture and dislocation of cervical vertebra. The witness had opined that cause of death was consumption of organochloro insecticide and fracture of second and third vertebra. 34. In cross-examination this witness stated that no radiological examination was undertaken, no X-ray was performed and she had found fracture of bones of neck on dissection of the dead body while performing post-mortem. 35. We are not satisfied with the opinion given by the doctor and also finding given by the trial court. 34. In cross-examination this witness stated that no radiological examination was undertaken, no X-ray was performed and she had found fracture of bones of neck on dissection of the dead body while performing post-mortem. 35. We are not satisfied with the opinion given by the doctor and also finding given by the trial court. The trial court has held as under:-- ^^ekeys esa vfHk;kstu dh vksj ls izLrqr gqbZ lk{; ds vk/kkj ij ;g mi/kkj.kk fy; tkus esa dksbZ fof/kd ck/kk ugha gS fd izFker% eqfYteku }kjk e`rd dh xnZu dks rksM+ x;k] D;ksfd og g`"Vi`"V Fkh vksj vklkuh ls dkcw esa ugh vk ldrh Fks vkSj xnZu VwVus ds i'pkr tc og d drbZ fojks/k djus dh fLFkfr esa ugh jgh rc eqfYteku us vius lkekU; vk'k; dh ifr esa mldh gR;k dks vkRegR;k dk veyhtkek igukus gsrq mlds mDr tgjhys inkFkZ vksxZuDyksjks bUlsfDVlkbZM dk lsou vklkuh ls djok fn;k] ftl dkj.k u rks e`rd ds cnu ij vkSj ugh eqfYteku ds cnu ij dksbZ la?k"kZ ds vykekr ik;s x;sA bl izdkj e`rd dh ekSr ixZe;k gksfElbZMy MsFk gh gS ,oa iksLVekZVedrkZ esfMdy cSM ds lnL; Mk-ih-M-6 Hkkjrh eh.kks us Li"V dFku fd;k gS fd e`rd dh ekSr xnZu ds ihNs uhps dh rjQ f}rh; o r`rh; ohV cz ij tks QzsDpj Fkk] ds dkj.k gks ldrh gS vkSj blds vykok tks mlds foljkt es iznZ'k es-5 ,Q-,l-,y- fjiksVZ ds vuqlkj vkSxZusDyksjks bUlsfDVlkbZM ik;k x;k gS] og Hkh mldh e`R;q dk dkj.k gks ldrk gSA bl izdkj ekeys esa eqfYeku guqeku lkg;] uSuk nsoh }kjk e`rd dh gR;k dkfjr djus okyh dgkuh ds bafxr djus gsrq i;kZIr ,oa fof/kd lk{; i=koyh ij fo/keku gSA ekeys esa e`rd dh ekSr dk dksbZ Li"Vhdj.k eqfYteku dh vksj ls ugh fn;k x;k gS] tcfd e`rd dh ekSr muds ?kj ij gh gqbZ gSA ekeys es tks ifjfLFkfrtU; lk{; is'k dh xbZ gS] mlesa fdlh izdkj dk xsi ;k nwjh ugh gS vkSj leLr ifjfLFkfrta; lk{; ls ,dek= ;gh fu"d"kZ fudyrk gS fd e`rd jk/kk dh gR;k dh gS rks dsoy vkSj dsoy eqfYteku guqekulgk;] uSuk nsoh oxSjg }kjk gh dh xbZ gS ,oa vU; fdlh ckgjh O;fDr ds }kjk mldh gR;k fd;s tkus dh laHkouk drbZ {kh.k gSA^^ 36. In case of fracture of vertebra death will be instantaneous. Fracture of vertebra otherwise will also disable the deceased to consume organochloro insecticide. 37. For us, report of Forensic Science Laboratory is important. In case of fracture of vertebra death will be instantaneous. Fracture of vertebra otherwise will also disable the deceased to consume organochloro insecticide. 37. For us, report of Forensic Science Laboratory is important. State Forensic Science Laboratory on examination of viscera vide its report (Ex. P.5) had opined as under:-- "On chemical examination, portions of viscera (1-5) from two packets marked 'A' and 'B' respectively gave positive tests for the presence of Organochloro Insecticides and gave negative tests for metallic poisons, ethyl and methyl alcohol, cyanide, alkaloids, barbiturates and tranquillizers." 38. The doctor has given opinion regarding dislocation and fracture of vertebra on clinical observation after dissection of neck was carried during the post-mortem. To us, the doctor had faulted in her clinical observation. No radiological examination was carried. There is no skiagram available to fortify the opinion of the doctor. No symptoms or indications of asphyxia are present. 39. For us, evidence of independent witness neighbour Ghanshyam Das (P.W.5) is important. He has stated that when the deceased was being carried to hospital, froth was coming from her nostrils and mouth. Therefore, at that time deceased was alive, though unconscious. The witness has spelt out symptoms of consumption and administration of poison. 40. Thus, in the present case, primarily death had taken place due to consumption/administration of organochloro insecticide which has been found by the Forensic Science Laboratory on examination of viscera. 41. Information was relayed to the brother of deceased on 24.9.2009 at 6.46 PM. In evening time, family members are expected to be present in the house. Chhotelal father-in-law, Sita sister-in-law and Naina Devi mother-in-law are expected to be present in their house in the evening. Defence has examined numerous witnesses to say that Hanuman Sahai on the day of occurrence was taking industrial training at Jaitpura which is part of Jaipur. Thus, in these circumstances, it is not safe to draw presumption under Section 106 of the Indian Evidence Act only against the present two appellants. 42. Radha deceased was married with the present appellant Hanuman Sahai on 05.12.2002. Death in the present case had taken place on 24.9.2009; hence, within seven years of marriage. There are six relations of the deceased who had come in Witness box to say that she was harassed and subjected to cruelty and maltreatment by the accused for demand of dowry. 43. Death in the present case had taken place on 24.9.2009; hence, within seven years of marriage. There are six relations of the deceased who had come in Witness box to say that she was harassed and subjected to cruelty and maltreatment by the accused for demand of dowry. 43. To us, Kanhaiya Lal (P.W.4) father of the deceased is a truthful witness. He has admitted in cross-examination that accused had not raised any demand at the time of marriage. They have raised demand after five years of marriage, ^^blfy, geus 'kknh dh Fkh 'kknh ls igys ?kj ckj ns[kk Fkk ml le; dksbZ fMekaM+ ugh Fkh ;g lgh gS fd 'kknh ds ckn dksbZ fMekaM+ ugh FkhA 'kknh ds 5 lky ckn fMEkkM dh Fkh^^ 44. It has been stated in written report that two months before death accused had demanded motorcycle and other articles of dowry. It has also come in evidence that when Chhotelal father of Hanuman Sahai accused went to take back daughter-in-law, he had told the mother of the deceased that demand of dowry be fulfilled. Counsel has stated at Bar that father-in-law Chhotelal and sister-in-law Sita have been acquitted for offence under Section 302/120B IPC. They were not tried for offence under Section 304B IPC. They have been only convicted for offence under Section 498A IPC. State has not preferred any appeal against their acquittal. Thus, to us, all ingredients of offence under Section 304B IPC in the present case are writ large. 45. In the present case within seven years of marriage deceased had died an unnatural death. There is evidence available that she was subjected to harassment and cruelty for demand of dowry. We reject the arguments raised by the learned counsel for the appellants that there was no demand of dowry soon before the marriage. Two months before a specific demand of dowry was raised. Even thereafter when father-in-law had gone to bring daughter-in-law back to matrimonial home, he had also raised demand of dowry. It has come in evidence that the deceased was subjected to cruelty and she used to tell her parents that accused were demanding dowry. Hence, demand of dowry from the day she returned from parental house was continuing and it seems that accused were pressing hard to satisfy the demand of motorcycle. It has come in evidence that the deceased was subjected to cruelty and she used to tell her parents that accused were demanding dowry. Hence, demand of dowry from the day she returned from parental house was continuing and it seems that accused were pressing hard to satisfy the demand of motorcycle. In these circumstances, presumption under Section 113B of the Indian Evidence Act is to be drawn against the accused. Therefore, in the present case, offence under Section 304B IPC is made out. 46. The trial court having perused the record ought to have framed alternative charge for offence under Section 304B IPC. To us, trial court committed a grave error not to frame charge under Section 304B IPC. Nonetheless, Section 304B IPC is a lesser offence than the offence under Section 302 IPC. Reliance can be placed upon the judgment rendered by the Supreme Court in Criminal Appeal No. 594 of 2009, Donthula Ravindranath @ Ravinder Rao v. State of Andhra Pradesh, decided on 6.1.2014. In the said case of Donthula Ravindranath (supra), conviction of the accused from offence under Section 302 IPC was altered to offence under Section 304B IPC. 47. Having held that the offence under Section 304B IPC is made out, we cannot ignore that in the present case accused were demanding motorcycle as part of dowry. We are conscious that subsequent demand after five years of marriage after the amendment of the provisions of Dowry Prohibition Act will fall within the ambit of dowry. Demand of motorcycle predominantly was for the benefit of husband. 48. In Salamat Ali & Anr. v. State of Bihar, AIR 1995 (SC) 1863 , the Hon'ble Apex Court has held as under:-- "3. By the conviction of Salim Ahmed, it stands confirmed that the deceased met a suicidal death and that Salim Ahmed was responsible for it, whether by himself or conjointly with others. The only point to be examined is whether there is clear and cogent evidence to involve the parents in the demands of dowry made or were they otherwise responsible for inflicting any cruelty on the deceased. We have been taken through the relevant portions of the evidence led by the prosecution. Uniformly every witness has said that the family members of the husband, i.e. Sasuralwale had been making demands of dowry in the form of television and scooter. We have been taken through the relevant portions of the evidence led by the prosecution. Uniformly every witness has said that the family members of the husband, i.e. Sasuralwale had been making demands of dowry in the form of television and scooter. The nature of the demand is some indication. The demand of scooter predominantly must have been raised by the husband. It cannot be expected that the father-in-law would be demanding a scooter for himself or that the mother-in-law needed it for her use. Different considerations, however, could, in certain events, apply to the television demand, but here again, it predominant that the husband wanted it more than his parents. Evidence of P. W. 1 is clear on this point that there were frequent quarrels, but only between husband and wife. In other words, the parents had no part to play in the quarrels between the spouses. P.W. 7, the father of the deceased also had said that his daughter had told him that the demand had been made by the husband, but he had then not taken it seriously. Thus, the allegations against the appellants are general in nature attributed to the husband's family. They have been identified because they were members of his family. It is not clear on the record as besides them who else were members of the family. It thus appears to us that in the absence of clear and pointed evidence it would be unsafe to maintain the conviction of the parents, on vague allegations that the demand of dowry was made by the husband's family members. In this view of the matter, we would record their acquittal. 4. Accordingly, this appeal is allowed, the judgment and order of the High Court, vis-à-vis the two appellants stands set aside, but maintained insofar as Salim Ahmed, accused, is concerned but under Section 304B, I.P.C. simpliciter, without the aid of Section 34, I.P.C. The appellants are on bail. They need not surrender to their bail-bonds." 49. Considering that other items of dowry have not been specified and demand of motorcycle was made by the accused, it can be safely said that the motorcycle was sought for the husband who was a student of B.Sc. (Agriculture). 50. They need not surrender to their bail-bonds." 49. Considering that other items of dowry have not been specified and demand of motorcycle was made by the accused, it can be safely said that the motorcycle was sought for the husband who was a student of B.Sc. (Agriculture). 50. We may notice here that the Hon'ble Apex Court had already put a word of caution in Kans Raj v. State of Punjab & Ors., AIR 2000 SC 2324 by observing as under:-- "For the fault of the husband, the in-laws or the other relations cannot, in all cases, be held to be involved in the demand of dowry. In cases where such accusations are made, the overt acts attributed to persons other than husband are required to be proved beyond reasonable doubt. By mere conjectures and implications such relations cannot be held guilty for the offence relating to dowry deaths. A tendency has, however, developed for roping in all relations of the in-laws of the deceased wives in the matters of dowry deaths which, if not discouraged, is likely to affect the case of the prosecution even against the real culprits. In their over enthusiasm and anxiety to seek conviction for maximum people, the parents of the deceased have been found to be making efforts for involving other relations which ultimately weaken the case of the prosecution even against the real accused as appears to have happened in the instant case." 51. Taking into account the observations made in Salamat Ali (supra) and Kans Raj (supra) we shall extend the benefit of doubt to Naina Devi mother-in-law. Hence, she is acquitted of offence under Section 302/34 IPC. However, we uphold her conviction for offence under Section 498A IPC and also affirm sentence awarded upon her by the trial court for the above said offence. 52. In view of above discussion, we alter conviction of Hanuman Sahai from offence under Section 302/34 IPC to Section 304B IPC. In the present case, occurrence had taken place in the year 2009. Appellant Hanuman Sahai is already in the corridors of the court for last seven years. It is not one of the extreme cases, where maximum sentence of life imprisonment ought to be awarded. 53. In the present case, occurrence had taken place in the year 2009. Appellant Hanuman Sahai is already in the corridors of the court for last seven years. It is not one of the extreme cases, where maximum sentence of life imprisonment ought to be awarded. 53. A Division Bench of this court in Deen Mohammad @ Murli v. State of Rajasthan [D.B. Criminal Appeal No. 13/2005, decided on 25.11.2014], while relying upon the case of Sunil Dutt Sharma v. State (Government of NCT of Delhi), (2014) 4 SCC 375 , has held as under:-- "Having affirmed the conviction of the appellants, we have been called upon to answer whether sentence of life imprisonment awarded by the learned Trial Court, in the facts and circumstances, is adequate and justified? Counsel for the appellant had relied upon case of Sunil Dutt Sharma (supra) wherein Their Lordships referring to case law, had culled out the principles which till now had been applied for awarding death as sentence and thereafter had observed that application of same principles while determining sentence in the case of dowry death also make better sense. In a very erudite judgment by culling out the principles laid in Jagmohan Singh v. The State of U.P., (1973) 1 SCC 20 , and Bachan Singh v. State of Punjab, (1980) 2 SCC 684 , it was held that since sentencing is an onerous exercise to be undertaken by the court, court should take note of aggravating and in mitigating circumstances. Their lordships in case of Sunil Dutt Sharma (supra) had also taken note of principles laid in a recent pronouncement by Hon'ble Apex Court in Sangeet and Another v. State of Haryana, (2013) 2 SCC 452 . It was held that evolution of principles of sentencing policy are to be distinguished from judge centric to fair amount of certainty. It will be appropriate for us to extensively quote from the judgment rendered by Apex Court in Sunil Dutt Sharma's case (supra):-- "10. Are we to understand that the quest and search for a sound jurisprudential basis for imposing a particular sentence on an offender is destined to remain elusive and the sentencing parameters in this country are bound to remain judge centric? Are we to understand that the quest and search for a sound jurisprudential basis for imposing a particular sentence on an offender is destined to remain elusive and the sentencing parameters in this country are bound to remain judge centric? The issue though predominantly dealt with in the context of cases involving the death penalty has tremendous significance to the Criminal Jurisprudence of the country inasmuch as in addition to the numerous offences under various special laws in force, hundreds of offences are enumerated in the Penal Code, punishment for which could extend from a single day to 10 years or even for life, a situation made possible by the use of the seemingly same expressions in different provisions of the Penal Code as noticed in the opening part of this order. 11. As noticed, the "net value" of the huge number of in depth exercises performed since Jagmohan Singh (supra) has been effectively and systematically culled out in Sangeet and Sankar Kisanrao Khade (supra). The identified principles could provide a sound objective basis for sentencing thereby minimizing individualized and judge centric perspectives. Such principles bear a fair amount of affinity to the principles applied in foreign jurisdictions, a resume of which is available in the decision of this Court in State of Punjab v. Prem Sagar and Others, (2008) 7 SCC 550 . The difference is not in the identity of the principles; it lies in the realm of application thereof to individual situations. While in India application of the principles is left to the judge hearing the case, in certain foreign jurisdictions such principles are formulated under the authority of the statute and are applied on principles of categorization of offences which approach, however, has been found by the Constitution Bench in Bachan Singh (supra) to be inappropriate to our system. The principles being clearly evolved and securely entrenched, perhaps, the answer lies in consistency in approach. 12. To revert to the main stream of the case, we see no reason as to why the principles of sentencing evolved by this Court over the years through largely in the context of the death penalty will not be applicable to all lesser sentences so long as the sentencing judge is vested with the discretion to award a lesser or a higher sentence resembling the swing of the pendulum from the minimum to the maximum. In fact, we are reminded of the age old infallible logic that what is good to one situation would hold to be equally good to another like situation. Beside paragraph 163 (underlined portion) of Bachan Singh (supra), reproduced earlier, bears testimony to the above fact. 13. Would the above principles apply to sentencing of an accused found guilty of the offence under Section 304-B inasmuch as the said offence is held to be proved against the accused on basis of a legal presumption? This is the next question that has to be dealt with. So long there is credible evidence of cruelty occasioned by demand(s) for dowry, any unnatural death of a woman within seven years of her marriage makes the husband or a relative of the husband of such woman liable for the offence of "dowry death" under Section 304-B though there may not be any direct involvement of the husband or such relative with the death in question. In a situation where commission of an offence is held to be proved by means of a legal presumption the circumstances surrounding the crime to determine the presence of aggravating circumstances (crime test) may not be readily forthcoming unlike a case where there is evidence of overt criminal acts establishing the direct involvement of the accused with the crime to enable the Court to come to specific conclusions with regard to the barbarous or depraved nature of the crime committed. The necessity to combat the menace of demand for dowry or to prevent atrocities on women and like social evils as well as the necessity to maintain the purity of social conscience cannot be determinative of the quantum of sentence inasmuch as the said parameters would be common to all offences under Section 304-B of the Penal Code. The above, therefore, cannot be elevated to the status of acceptable jurisprudential principles to act as a rational basis for awarding varying degrees of punishment on a case to case basis. The search for principles to satisfy the crime test in an offence under Section 304-B of the Penal Code must, therefore, lie elsewhere. The above, therefore, cannot be elevated to the status of acceptable jurisprudential principles to act as a rational basis for awarding varying degrees of punishment on a case to case basis. The search for principles to satisfy the crime test in an offence under Section 304-B of the Penal Code must, therefore, lie elsewhere. Perhaps, the time spent between marriage and the death of the woman; the attitude and conduct of the accused towards the victim before her death; the extent to which the demand for dowry was persisted with and the manner and circumstances of commission of the cruelty would be a surer basis for determination of the crime test. Coupled with the above, the fact whether the accused was also charged with the offence under Section 302 of the Penal Code and the basis of his acquittal of the said charge would be another very relevant circumstance. As against this the extenuating/mitigating circumstances which would determine the "criminal test" must be allowed to have a full play. The aforesaid two sets of circumstances being mutually irreconcilable cannot be arranged in the form of a balance sheet as observed in Sangeet (supra) but it is the cumulative effect of the two sets of different circumstances that has to be kept in mind while rendering the sentencing decision. This, according to us, would be the correct approach while dealing with the question of sentence so far as the offence under Section 304-B of the Penal Code is concerned." 54. We may also notice that in the case of Sunil Dutt Sharma (supra), while reducing the sentence, it was noted that wife of Sunil Dutt Sharma died due to asphyxia, resulting from strangulation. 55. Furthermore, in the case of Hari Om v. State of Haryana and Another [Cr. Appeal No. 1167/2011 decided on 31.10.2014], the Hon'ble Apex Court considering question of sentence for offence under Section 304-B IPC, took note of case law on this question, and after considering various judgments of Hon'ble Apex Court, held as under:-- "22. In the case of Hem Chand v. State of Haryana, (1994) 6 SCC 727 , the courts below had awarded life term to the accused under Section 304-B read with Section 498-A but this Court reduced it to 10 years. This was also a case where the accused was a police officer who had suffered life imprisonment. In the case of Hem Chand v. State of Haryana, (1994) 6 SCC 727 , the courts below had awarded life term to the accused under Section 304-B read with Section 498-A but this Court reduced it to 10 years. This was also a case where the accused was a police officer who had suffered life imprisonment. This Court held as under: "7........ 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 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...." 23. xxx xxx xxx xxx 24. xxx xxx xxx xxx 25. Applying the principle of law laid down in the aforementioned cases and having regard to the totality of facts and circumstances of this case, we are of the considered opinion that the ends of justice would meet, if we reduce the sentence of the appellant from life imprisonment to that of 10 years. In our view, this case does not fall in the category of a "rare case" as envisaged by this Court so as to award to the appellant the life imprisonment. That apart, we also notice that while awarding life imprisonment, the courts below did not assign any reasons." 56. Having noted the principles of law governing sentencing, Their Lordships held that since in the case of Sunil Dutt Sharma (supra) death was due to strangulation, it was appropriate to award sentence of ten years to the appellant in that case under Section 304-B IPC as same shall serve ends of justice. 57. Hence, we are of the considered opinion that in the present case, maximum sentence of life imprisonment for offence under Section 304B IPC is not called for. 58. 57. Hence, we are of the considered opinion that in the present case, maximum sentence of life imprisonment for offence under Section 304B IPC is not called for. 58. Having altered the offence from Section 302/34 IPC to Section 304B IPC, we are of the opinion that if sentence of ten years is awarded, that will serve the ends of justice. 59. Consequently, for the reasons stated above, accused-appellant Naina Devi is acquitted of offence under Section 302/34 IPC. Her conviction and sentence for offence under Section 498A IPC is upheld and maintained. Sentence of accused-appellant Hanuman Sahai is altered from Section 302/34 IPC to Section 304B IPC and he is sentenced to undergo ten years rigorous imprisonment and pay a fine of Rs. 10,000/-, in default thereof he shall undergo one year rigorous imprisonment. With the above modification in the conviction and sentence, the present appeal stands disposed of.