JUDGMENT Hon’ble Om Prakash-VII, J.—This Criminal Appeal is directed by the appellants against the judgment and order dated 22.5.2012 passed by the Additional District and Sessions Judge, Court No. 8, Basti in Sessions Trial No. 137of 2010 (State v. Jitendra Singh and another) pertaining to crime No. 8 of 2010, Police Station Dubauliya, district Basti whereby the appellants have been convicted and sentenced under Section 498-A IPC to undergo 2 years’ rigorous imprisonment and fine of Rs. 5,000/- to each, for the offence under Section 4 Dowry Prohibition Act to undergo one year rigorous imprisonment and fine of Rs. 5,000/- to each. In default of payment of fine to undergo additional imprisonment was also ordered. Appellants have also been convicted and sentenced for the offence under Section 304-B IPC to undergo rigorous imprisonment of 10 years. 2. Prosecution story in nutshell is as under : 3. On 28.12.2009 informant Amit Singh brother of the deceased moved a written report (Ext. Ka-1) to the police station concerned mentioning therein that his sister Neetu Singh was married with appellant Jitendra Singh on 12.5.2007. Sufficient dowry was given at the time of the marriage including jewellery and other house hold articles. Appellant Jitendra Singh and his mother usually abuse and torture her. By that time deceased was pregnant. Appellant Jitendra Singh compelled to the deceased to demand the money for her treatment from her parents because he has been retrenched from the service. Informant family had given Rs. 2,000/- for the treatment of the deceased. Deceased remained perturbed as her in-laws were not taking care of her. Informant had taken the deceased to Delhi on 1.1.2009. The deceased gave birth to a female child in Guru Govind Singh Hospital, Delhi. After about four months again deceased came at her in-laws house. Few days thereafter Jitendra Singh, his mother Englisha Singh, father Ram Nihal Singh demanded Rs. 1 lakh for purchasing jeep. They showed their inability to pay the amount. Due to this reason deceased was burnt by the accused persons on 26.12.2009. No information was given to the informant regarding the incident. Maternal uncle of the informant informed them that deceased is admitted in the Gorakhpur Hospital. On 27.12.2009 informant and his family members reached there. Deceased started weeping saying that accused person burnt her due to non fulfilment of demand of money for purchasing jeep. No information was given to the informant regarding the incident. Maternal uncle of the informant informed them that deceased is admitted in the Gorakhpur Hospital. On 27.12.2009 informant and his family members reached there. Deceased started weeping saying that accused person burnt her due to non fulfilment of demand of money for purchasing jeep. She also stated that she will not survive. The people present there told to approach to the District Magistrate concerned for recording the statement of the deceased. When informant reached there the official concerned asked him to go to the D.I.G. Office. He also approached to the D.I.G. office but no action was taken on one pretext or the other. On the day when information was given to the police concerned the deceased was under treatment in the hospital concerned. Prayer was made to lodge the First Information Report. 4. On the basis of written report (Ext. Ka-1) the First Information Report was lodged at crime No. 8 of 2010, under Section 498-A IPC on 9.1.2010 at 5.10 P.M. vide the chik First Information Report (Ext. Ka-3). G. D. Entry was also made vide Ext. Ka 4. On 9.1.2010 deceased died during treatment. Information was given to the police concerned by the hospital authorities. Case was converted into the offence under Section 304-B IPC on the basis of information. Concerned police reached the hospital and prepared the inquest report (Ext. Ka-12). Police papers Ext. Ka-8 to Ka 11 were also prepared. Dead body was kept in sealed cloth. Sample seal was also prepared and body was sent to the mortuary for post-mortem through constable CP 230 Jai Ram Singh and C.P. 875 Virendra Tiwari of Police Station Cantt., district Gorakhpur. 5. Post-mortem on the dead body of the deceased was done on 10.1.2010 at 4.40 P.M. Deceased was aged about 27 years and was of average body built. Rigor mortis was passing of from upper part but was present in the lower part of the body. Following ante-mortem injury was found at the time of post-mortem- (1) Superficial to deep burn injuries from head to toe except sole were present. Line of redness present at places. Cause of death is shown as due to septic, shock as a result of burn injuries. 6. Police after investigating the matter submitted charge-sheet against the present appellants. Following ante-mortem injury was found at the time of post-mortem- (1) Superficial to deep burn injuries from head to toe except sole were present. Line of redness present at places. Cause of death is shown as due to septic, shock as a result of burn injuries. 6. Police after investigating the matter submitted charge-sheet against the present appellants. The concerned Magistrate took the cognizance and committed the case to the Court of Sessions for trial as the matter was exclusively triable by the Sessions Court. 7. Sessions Judge concerned framed the charges against the appellants under Section 4 D.P. Act, 498-A and 304-B IPC Alternative charge under Section 302 IPC was also framed. Accused person denied from the charges and claimed their trial. 8. In order to prove its case the prosecution examined P.W.-1 Puneet Singh; P.W.-2 Amit Singh; P.W.-3 Vindu Singh; P.W.-4 Ghanshyam Singh; P.W.-5 Vipendra Singh; P.W.-6 Gyan Kali; P.W.-7 Rajesh Singh; P.W.-8 Shyam Sundar Prajapati; P.W.-9 S.I. Lalta Prasad Chaudhari; P.W.-10 C.O. Ram Byas Rai; P.W.-11 Smt. Vandana Pandey; P.W.-12 S.I. Chotey Lal Ram and P.W.-13 Dr. T. N. Jha. After conclusion of the prosecution evidence statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. of the accused appellants was recorded in which they have stated the prosecution story to be false and also stated that they have been falsely implicated in this case. No such incident has been committed by the appellants. 9. In their defence appellants have examined D.W.-1 Dr. Gopal Prasad; D.W.-2 Hemant Singh and D.w.-3 Badu. 10. Trial Court after hearing the parties vide impugned judgment and order dated 22.5.2012 convicted and sentenced the appellants as above. Hence this appeal. 11. Learned counsel for the appellants stated that no such incident ever took place as stated by the prosecution witnesses. Deceased committed suicide herself. No any demand was ever made from the deceased or her parents. It was further submitted that appellant Jitendra Singh himself has received injuries while he was trying to save the deceased. It was next submitted that there is general allegation against the appellants. If any demand was being made on the part of the appellants, the informant or his other family members ought to have made any complaint. Since no any complaint was made before this First Information Report thus it was prayed that whole prosecution story was manipulated after a gap of about 14 days of the incident. If any demand was being made on the part of the appellants, the informant or his other family members ought to have made any complaint. Since no any complaint was made before this First Information Report thus it was prayed that whole prosecution story was manipulated after a gap of about 14 days of the incident. It was further argued that First Information Report is delayed. Deceased was admitted to the hospital by the appellant Jitendra Singh. Medical examination of the appellant Jitendra Singh was also done by the Doctor about the injuries received by him in the incident. It was also submitted by the learned counsel for the appellants that giving of Rs. 2,000/- for medical treatment cannot be taken as fulfilment of the dowry. Demanding of Rs. 1 lakh for purchasing the jeep can also not be taken as demand of dowry. In the present matter there is no any persistent demand of dowry thus prayer has been made that the trial Court had failed to appreciate the prosecution evidence in right perspective which leads to a wrong conclusion. 12. Learned A.G.A. argued that the deceased died within seven years of her marriage in the house of the appellants. Death of the deceased occurred due to burn injuries received by her. There is sufficient evidence on record that deceased was subjected to the cruelly or harassment for or in connection with the demand of dowry by the appellants. On many occasions they were demanding Rs. 1 lakh for purchasing the jeep. These facts had been told by the deceased from her parents. Deceased has made dying declaration when her parents and brothers had come to the hospital. Finding recorded by the trial Court is in accordance with the evidence. Prosecution was also able to establish that the deceased was subjected to cruelty and harassment soon before her death for or in connection with the said demand. Thus all the essential ingredients to constitute the offence have been established by the prosecution beyond reasonable doubt. 13. Learned counsel for the appellant has placed reliance on the following case laws : 1. Baljinder Kaur v. State of Punjab, LAWS (SC) 2014-11-33. 2. Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar and another, 2014 Law Suit (SC) 518 3. Asha v. State of Uttarakhand, LAWS (SC)-2013-11-6. 4. Geeta Mehrotra and another v. State of U.P. and another, 2012 Law Suit (SC) 716. 5. Baljinder Kaur v. State of Punjab, LAWS (SC) 2014-11-33. 2. Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar and another, 2014 Law Suit (SC) 518 3. Asha v. State of Uttarakhand, LAWS (SC)-2013-11-6. 4. Geeta Mehrotra and another v. State of U.P. and another, 2012 Law Suit (SC) 716. 5. Devender Singh v. State of Haryana, 2007 (57) ACC 292. 6. Tirath Kumari v. State of Haryana, 2005 (53) ACC 759. 14. Before adverting to the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties I think it proper to quote the relevant paragraph of the above case laws. Hon’ble the Supreme Court in para Nos. 15, 16, 17 and 20 in the case of Geeta Mehrotra has held as under : 15. Under the facts and circumstance of similar nature in the case of Raamesh v. State of Tamil Nadu, (2005) SCC (Crl) 735 at 738 allegations were made in a complaint against the husband, the in-laws, husband’s brother and sister who were all the petitioners before the High Court wherein after registration of the F.I.R. and investigation, the charge-sheet was filed by the Inspector of Police in the Court of Judicial Magistrate III, Trichy. Thereupon, the learned magistrate took cognizance of the offence and issued warrants against the appellants on 13.2.2002. Four of the accused-appellants were arrested and released on bail by the magistrate at Mumbai. The appellants had filed petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. before the Madras High Court for quashing the proceedings in complaint case on the file of the Judicial Magistrate III, Trichy. The High Court by the impugned order dismissed the petition observing that the grounds raised by the petitioners were all subject-matters to be heard by the trial Court for better appreciation after conducting full trial as the High Court was of the view that it was only desirable to dismiss the criminal original petition and the same was also dismissed. However, the High Court had directed the Magistrate to dispense with the personal attendance of the appellants. 16. Aggrieved by the order of the Madras High Court dismissing the petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C., the special leave petition was filed in this Court giving rise to the appeals therein where threefold contentions were raised viz. However, the High Court had directed the Magistrate to dispense with the personal attendance of the appellants. 16. Aggrieved by the order of the Madras High Court dismissing the petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C., the special leave petition was filed in this Court giving rise to the appeals therein where threefold contentions were raised viz. , (i) that the allegations are frivolous and without any basis; (ii) even according to the FIR, no incriminating acts were done within the jurisdiction of Trichy Police Station and the Court at Trichy and, therefore, the learned magistrate lacked territorial jurisdiction to take cognizance of the offence and (iii) taking cognizance of the alleged offence at that stage was barred under Section 468 (1) Cr.P.C. as it was beyond the period of limitation prescribed under Section 468 (2) Cr.P.C. Apart from the subsequent two contentions, it was urged that the allegations under the FIR do not make out any offence of which cognizance could be taken. 17. Their Lordships of the Supreme Court in this matter had been pleased to hold that the bald allegations made against the sister in law by the complainant appeared to suggest the anxiety of the informant to rope in as many of the husband’s relatives as possible. It was held that neither the FIR nor the charge-sheet furnished the legal basis for the magistrate to take cognizance of the offences alleged against the appellants. The learned Judges were pleased to hold that looking to the allegations in the FIR and the contents of the charge-sheet, none of the alleged offences under Section 498 A, 406 and Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act were made against the married sister of the complainant’s husband who was undisputedly not living with the family of the complainant’s husband. Their Lordships of the Supreme Court were pleased to hold that the High Court ought not to have relegated the sister in law to the ordeal of trial. Accordingly, the proceedings against the appellants were quashed and the appeal was allowed. 20. Their Lordships of the Supreme Court were pleased to hold that the High Court ought not to have relegated the sister in law to the ordeal of trial. Accordingly, the proceedings against the appellants were quashed and the appeal was allowed. 20. It would be relevant at this stage to take note of an apt observation of this Court recorded in the matter of G.V. Rao v. L.H.V. Prasad and others, (2000) 3 SCC 693 , wherein also in a matrimonial dispute, this Court had held that the High Court should have quashed the complaint arising out of a matrimonial dispute wherein all family members had been roped into the matrimonial litigation which was quashed and set aside. Their Lordships observed therein with which we entirely agree that: “there has been an outburst of matrimonial dispute in recent times. Marriage is a sacred ceremony, main purpose of which is to enable the young couple to settle down in life and live peacefully. But little matrimonial skirmishes suddenly erupt which often assume serious proportions resulting in heinous crimes in which elders of the family are also involved with the result that those who could have counselled and brought about rapprochement are rendered helpless on their being arrayed as accused in the criminal case. There are many reasons which need not be mentioned here for not encouraging matrimonial litigation so that the parties may ponder over their defaults and terminate the disputes amicably by mutual agreement instead of fighting it out in a Court of law where it takes years and years to conclude and in that process the parties lose their “young” days in chasing their cases in different Courts.” The view taken by the judges in this matter was that the Courts would not encourage such disputes. 15. In the present matter incident is said to have taken place on 26.12.2009. Deceased died on 9.1.2010 in the hospital. Doctor conducting the post-mortem on the body of the deceased had opined that deceased was burnt from head to foot except the sole. It has also been observed by the Doctor that cause of death was due to burn injuries received by the deceased. In the cross-examination Doctor has stated that he did not find any smell of kerosene oil. Admittedly there is no any dying declaration recorded by the police, Doctor or the Magistrate. It has also been observed by the Doctor that cause of death was due to burn injuries received by the deceased. In the cross-examination Doctor has stated that he did not find any smell of kerosene oil. Admittedly there is no any dying declaration recorded by the police, Doctor or the Magistrate. First information report is lodged on 9.1.2010 although information had been given on 28.12.2009. Appellants case is that they had informed the complainant about the incident but the witnesses examined on behalf of the prosecution have stated that they received information from some other person. 16. Finding of the trial Court regarding the date of marriage is that deceased was married on 12.3.2007 with the appellant Jitendra Singh. Evidence adduced by the appellants in rebuttal to this fact to establish that deceased was married 10 years back from the incident was not found believable. To analyse this fact I have also perused the entire evidence and found no any substance in the submission of the learned counsel for the appellant. The finding recorded by the trial Court regarding date of marriage is in accordance with law. 17. So far as the delay in lodging of the First Information Report is concerned, certainly information has been given to the police concerned on 28.12.2009 but the First Information Report was lodged on 9.1.2010. Informant’s case is that they have informed to the authorities concerned to record the dying declaration but no any effort was made on the part of the authorities to record the statement. Certainly there is some delay in lodging the First Information Report but looking the period of treatment of the deceased and date of death and also the nature of the offence it might be possible that informant would have been thinking that deceased would survive. If this fact be also not taken into consideration then also information has been given to the concerned police on 28.12.2009 about the incident. Since it is a bride burning case, except to the in-laws no other person would remain present in that house, therefore, delay in lodging the First Information Report in such type of matter, in the opinion of the Court, is of no consequence. On this ground prosecution case could not be doubted. As far as the demand of dowry is concerned the submission of the learned counsel for the appellants that Rs. On this ground prosecution case could not be doubted. As far as the demand of dowry is concerned the submission of the learned counsel for the appellants that Rs. 2,000/- given earlier for treatment could not be taken as fulfilment of the dowry may be true but the subsequent demand made for purchasing the jeep comes under the purview of the demand of dowry. With the latest amendment in the Dowry Prohibition Act the demand made after the marriage also comes under the purview of the Dowry Prohibition Act. Therefore, demand made for purchasing the jeep can be taken as demand of dowry. 18. Submission of the learned counsel for the appellants is also that there is general allegation regarding demand. Except to this general allegation there is no other evidence to connect the appellant Ram Nihal Singh with the said demand. The demand of money for purchasing the jeep could only be attributed to the husband who would be directly benefited with the demand. Appellant Ram Nihal Singh who is old aged person could not be attributed with this demand. Prosecution was also not able to prove that in what manner he would be directly benefited with the demand. Submission raised by the learned counsel for the appellants regarding participation of co-accused Ram Nihal Singh has substance. Prosecution has also not established that the appellant Ram Nihal Singh was making demand for purchasing the jeep persistently. There is general allegation against the appellant Ram Nihal Singh. He is father-in-law of the deceased and aged about 55 years. Any demand for purchasing the jeep could be attributed to the appellant No. 1 Jitendra Singh who was the husband of the deceased and he was responsible for this demand. Looking to the nature of the allegation made in the First Information Report and in the statement of the prosecution witnesses and also in view of the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Geeta Mehrotra (Supra) case the participation of the appellant Ram Nihal Singh in the present mater appears doubtful. Death of the deceased is the result of burn injuries. There is no any direct evidence that accused appellant Ram Nihal Singh had actively participated in burning the deceased. Death of the deceased is the result of burn injuries. There is no any direct evidence that accused appellant Ram Nihal Singh had actively participated in burning the deceased. There is also no any dying declaration except oral statement of the prosecution witnesses which is also not specific on the point of participation of the appellant Ram Nihal Singh. Thus looking to the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court when there is no any evidence regarding persistent demand of dowry made by the accused appellant Ram Nihal Singh and also there is no any live link of the demand with the accused appellant Ram Nihal Singh and the prosecution could also not specify the role of this appellant, therefore, the conviction and sentence held by the trial Court of the accused appellant Ram Nihal Singh for the offence under Sections 498-A, 304-B IPC and 4 D. P. Act is not sustainable and appeal on behalf of Ram Nihal Singh is liable to be allowed. 18-A. So far as the participation of the appellant Jitnedra Singh is concerned he is husband. It is established beyond reasonable doubt from the evidence that deceased died within seven years of her marriage and death occurred due to burn injuries otherwise than under normal circumstances. Demand for purchasing the jeep was also made which could be attributed to the accused appellant Jitendra Singh, who was solely responsible for looking after and keeping her wife safe. Prosecution case is also established beyond reasonable doubt from the evidence that deceased was subjected to cruelty and harassment soon before her death by the appellant Jitendra Singh for or in connection of demand of dowry. Thus finding recorded by the trial Court regarding participation of the accused appellant Jitendra Singh for committing the present offence cannot be termed to be illegal or perverse. The appeal filed on behalf of the appellant Jitendra Singh has no merit and the finding recorded by the trial Court regarding conviction and sentence against the appellant Jitendra Singh under Section 498-A, 304-B, IPC and 4 D. P. Act cannot be interfered. 19. So far as the submission regarding imposition of adequate sentence is concerned, it is always a difficult task requiring balancing of various considerations. The question of awarding sentence is a matter of discretion to be exercised on consideration of circumstances aggravating and mitigating in the individual cases. 20. 19. So far as the submission regarding imposition of adequate sentence is concerned, it is always a difficult task requiring balancing of various considerations. The question of awarding sentence is a matter of discretion to be exercised on consideration of circumstances aggravating and mitigating in the individual cases. 20. It is settled legal position that appropriate sentence should be awarded after giving due consideration to the facts and circumstances of each case, nature of the offence and the manner in which it was executed or committed. It is the obligation of the Court to constantly remind itself that the right of the victim, and be it said, on certain occasions the person aggrieved as well as the society at large can be victims, never be marginalised. The measure of punishment should be proportionate to the gravity of the offence. Object of sentencing should be to protect society and to deter the criminal in achieving the avowed object of law. Further, it is expected that the Courts would operate the sentencing system so as to impose such sentence which reflects the conscience of the society and the sentencing process has to be stern where it should be. The Court will be failing in its duty if appropriate punishment is not awarded for a crime which has been committed not only against the individual victim but also against the society to which the criminal and victim belong. The punishment to be awarded for a crime must not be irrelevant but it should conform to and be consistent with the atrocity and brutality which the crime has been perpetrated, the enormity of the crime warranting public abhorrence and it should ‘respond to the society’s cry for justice against the criminal’. [Vide : (Sumer Singh v. Surajbhan Singh and others, (2014) 7 SCC 323 , Sham Sunder v. Puran, (1990) 4 SCC 731 , M.P. v. Saleem, (2005) 5 SCC 554 , Ravji v. State of Rajasthan, (1996) 2 SCC 175 ]. 21. In view of the above propositions of law, the paramount principle that should be the guiding laser beam is that the punishment should be proportionate to the gravity of the offence. 22. The Apex Court in the case of G.V. Siddaramesh v. State of Karnataka; 2010 (87) AIC 43 (SC), while allowing the appeal of the appellant, altered the sentence. Paragraph 31 of the said judgment is reproduced below: “31. 22. The Apex Court in the case of G.V. Siddaramesh v. State of Karnataka; 2010 (87) AIC 43 (SC), while allowing the appeal of the appellant, altered the sentence. Paragraph 31 of the said judgment is reproduced below: “31. In conclusion, we are satisfied that in the facts and circumstances of the case, the appellant was rightly convicted under Section 304-B I. P. C. However, his sentence of life imprisonment imposed by the Courts below appears to us to be excessive. The appellant is a young man and has already undergone 6 years of imprisonment after being convicted by the Additional Sessions Judge and the High Court. We are of the view, in the facts and circumstances of the case, that a sentence of 10 years’ rigorous imprisonment would meet the ends of justice. We accordingly, while confirming the conviction of the appellant under Section 304-B, I. P. C., reduce the sentence of imprisonment for life to 10 years’ rigorous imprisonment. The other conviction and sentence passed against the appellant are confirmed.” 23. Submission of the learned counsel for the appellant is that looking to the nature of the offence and the conduct of the appellant Jitendra Singh the sentence imposed by the trial Court for the offence under Section 304-B IPC is excessive. Minimum sentence be imposed upon him. 24. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and going through the evidence available on record and also the law laid down in the above mentioned cases no lenient view can be taken in the present matter against the appellant Jitendra Singh. The sentence imposed upon the appellant Jitendra Singh for the offences proved against him is adequate, proportionate and according to the conscience of the society. It would also sub serve the purpose of sentence. No leniency is required to be extended in the matter to the accused appellant Jitendra Singh. 25. On the basis of above discussion, appeal is partly allowed. Conviction and sentence imposed upon appellant Ram Nihal Singh for the offence under Sections 498-A, 304-B, IPC and 4 D. P. Act is hereby set aside and accused appellant Ram Nihal Singh is acquitted from the charges under Sections 498-A, 304-B, IPC and 4 D.P. Act. He is on bail. He need not to surrender. 26. Conviction and sentence imposed upon appellant Ram Nihal Singh for the offence under Sections 498-A, 304-B, IPC and 4 D. P. Act is hereby set aside and accused appellant Ram Nihal Singh is acquitted from the charges under Sections 498-A, 304-B, IPC and 4 D.P. Act. He is on bail. He need not to surrender. 26. So far as the appeal filed on behalf of appellant Jitendra Singh is concerned, finding no illegality or perversity in the conviction and sentence imposed upon him for the offence under Sections 498-A, 304-B, IPC and 4 D. P. Act appeal in respect to appellant Jitendra Singh having no merit is hereby dismissed. 27. Record of the trial Court alongwith copy of this judgment be sent to the Court concerned and Chief Judicial Magistrate concerned for immediate compliance. Compliance report be also submitted to this Court. ———————