Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2017 DIGILAW 1479 (ALL)

SHAILENDRA v. STATE OF U. P.

2017-06-01

BALA KRISHNA NARAYANA, KRISHNA PRATAP SINGH

body2017
JUDGMENT : 1. Criminal appeal no. 3754 of 2005 has been preferred by appellants Babli alias Bal Kishan and Smt Gudiya while criminal appeal no. 4000 of 2005 has been filed by appellant Shailendra against the judgment and order dated 27.08.2005 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Court No.3 Bulandshahar by which appellants Babli alias Bal Kishan and Smt.Gudiya have been convicted and sentenced to seven years rigorous imprisonment under Section 304-B IPC, two years rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 5000/- each under Section 498-A IPC and one year rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 1000/- each under Section 4 D.P.Act, while appellant Shailendra has been convicted and sentenced to imprisonment for life under Section 304-B IPC, two years rigorous imprisonment with a fine of Rs. 5000/- under Section 498-A IPC and one year rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 1000/- under Section 4 D.P.Act. All the sentences were directed to run concurrently. 2. We have heard Sri Sunil Singh, learned counsel for the appellants and Smt. Manju Thakur, State Law Officer of the State. 3. Since both these appeals arise out of the same incident and are directed against the same judgment and order they are being heard and decided together by a common judgment. 4. Briefly stated the prosecution story is that Kailash Chandra Sharma resident of Mohalla Vijay Nagar, Ghaziabad whose daughter Smt. Neeraj was married to accused appellant Shailendra on 28.04.1999 and was living with her husband in Mohalla Shivnagar, Sikandarabad, Bulandshahar, died on 07.03.2004. On receiving information about the death of Smt. Neeraj, her father Kailash Chandra Sharma came to Sikandrabad and informed the police station Sikandrabad through a written Tehrir that his daughter had committed suicide. The aforesaid information was entered in G.D. No. 29 at 21.20 hours on 07.03.2004. Acting upon the aforesaid information, PW-4 Gajendra Pal Singh along with Constables Rajvir and Constable Mundraj reached the place of occurrence. Inquest on the cadaver of the deceased was conducted by PW-4-S.I.- Gajendra Pal Singh on 07.03.2004 between 21.45-23.45 hours. Thereafter custody of four golden bangles, two rings, two kundals and two silver paijebs, which the deceased was wearing at the time of her death was given to her father PW-1, the informant Kailash Chandra Sharma. Inquest on the cadaver of the deceased was conducted by PW-4-S.I.- Gajendra Pal Singh on 07.03.2004 between 21.45-23.45 hours. Thereafter custody of four golden bangles, two rings, two kundals and two silver paijebs, which the deceased was wearing at the time of her death was given to her father PW-1, the informant Kailash Chandra Sharma. The red colour saari which was lying near the feet of the deceased's dead body was seized by the police vide recovery memo dated 07.03.2004 Ext.Ka-7. After inquest the dead body was sealed and sent through Constables Rajvir and Mundraj along with necessary papers to the District Hospital for conducting the post mortem. 5. On 08.03.2004 at 4.00 p.m. Dr. S.K.Agarwal, conducted the post mortem of the dead body and prepared the post mortem report Ext.Ka-2. He noted that the deceased was aged about 24 years and had died one day before. She was of average built lady. Rigor mortis was present all over the body. The following ante mortem injuries were found on the dead body of the deceased: (1) Contusion 8.00 c.m. x 2.5 c.m. on right side of middle of neck. On exploration under lying tissue found ecchymosed right cornua of hyoid bone fractured. (2) Contusion 1.5 c.m. x 1 c.m. on right ear lobe. On internal examination bloody fluid was seen coming out of nostrils. Brain, membrances, Larynx and Traches; liver were found congested. 300 grams of semi digested food found on stomach. Gall bladder was half full. Uterus was non-gravid. 6. According to PW-5 Dr. S.K.Agarwal death had occurred due to Asphyxia as a result of throttling. 7. On 09.03.2004 pieces of broken bangles of the deceased were recovered by C.O., Sikandrabad Santosh Kumar Singh from the floor of the deceased's bed room in her rented house, where her dead body was found lying, who sealed the same and prepared the recovery memo Ext.Ka-12. 8. S.K.Agarwal death had occurred due to Asphyxia as a result of throttling. 7. On 09.03.2004 pieces of broken bangles of the deceased were recovered by C.O., Sikandrabad Santosh Kumar Singh from the floor of the deceased's bed room in her rented house, where her dead body was found lying, who sealed the same and prepared the recovery memo Ext.Ka-12. 8. On the basis of the typed application given by Kailash Chandra Sharma PW-1 addressed to SSP alleging therein that his daughter Smt. Neeraj was married to accused appellant Shailendra on 28.04.1999 and although in the marriage of his daughter he had given sufficient dowry, but the accused appellant Shailendra husband of her daughter, Ram Charan, Maya Devi father and mother-in-law of her daughter, Bhulla alias Krishna Kumar (devar), Smt. Gudiya (Nanad) and Babli alias Bal Kishan (Nandoi) were not satisfied by the dowry given at the time of marriage and soon after the marriage they started demanding Rs. 50,000/- in cash and scooter as additional dowry and when demands of additional dowry could not be fulfilled they started maltreating and torturing the deceased Smt. Neeraj, who communicated the instances of her torture and maltreatment to her parents on telephone and also narrated the same to them whenever they visited her matrimonial home. On 02.03.2004 Smt. Neeraj was subjected to severe beating by the accused appellant which compelled the informant to take his daughter back to his house. On 03.03.2004 accused-appellants Smt. Gudiya and her husband accused-appellant Babli alias Bal Kishan went to her house and implored to the informant to send back Smt. Neeraj with them to her matrimonial home and also assured him that in future she would not be tortured or maltreated. Acting upon the assurance given by the accused-appellants Smt.Gudiya and Babli alias Bal Kishan, he sent his daughter Smt Neeraj to her matrimonial home. On 07.03.2004 at about 2.00 o'clock in the noon Smt.Neeraj was done to death by the accused. It is further stated in the application that Sikandrabad police had colluded with the accused and hence report of the occurrence was not registered. A prayer was made in the application to register the case against the accused-appellants Ext.Ka-1. On the basis of the application Ext.Ka-1, case crime no. It is further stated in the application that Sikandrabad police had colluded with the accused and hence report of the occurrence was not registered. A prayer was made in the application to register the case against the accused-appellants Ext.Ka-1. On the basis of the application Ext.Ka-1, case crime no. 45 of 2004 under Section 304-B IPC and 3/4 D.P.Act was registered against the accused at 17.30 hours on 08.03.2004 and its substance was entered in the G.D. No. 33. Investigation of the case was entrusted to PW-6 S.K.Singh, Circle Officer, Sikandrabad. During the course of the investigation, he recorded the statements of the witnesses, visited the place of occurrence and after inspecting the same prepared its site plan. 9. After completion of investigation he submitted charge sheet against the accused appellants as well as accused Maya Devi mother-in-law, Bhulla, brother in law (devar) and Ram Charan, father-in-law of the deceased, under Sections 498-A, 304-B IPC and Section 3/4 D.P.Act to the court of C.J.M., Bulandshahr on 23.04.2004. 10. Since the case was triable exclusively by the court of Sessions, C.J.M., Bulandshahar committed the case for trial of the accused to the court of Sessions Judge, Bulandshahar by his committal order dated 12.05.2004, where it was registered as S.T.No. 393 of 2004 and made over for trial to the court of Additional Sessions Judge, Bulandshahar Court No.3 who on the basis of the material on record and after hearing the prosecution as well as the accused on the point of charge framed charge against all the accused under Section 4 D.P.Act and Sections 498-A, 304-B IPC. The accused-appellants abjured the charge and claimed trial. 11. The prosecution in support of its accusations examined PW-1 Kailash Chandra Sharma, PW-2 Hridya Ram, PW-3 Charan Pal Singh as witnesses of fact, PW-4 S.I. Gajendra Pal Singh, PW-5 Dr. S.K.Agarwal and PW-6S.K.Singh, Investigating Officer of this case were produced as formal witnesses. PW-1 proved the typed report of the occurrence as Ext.Ka-1, memo regarding taking in supurdagi of two kundals, two payjebs and four bangles as Ext.Ka-3. PW-3 Charan Pal Singh proved the check FIR as Ext.Ka-3, carbon copy of G.D.No. 33 dated 08.03.2004 as Ext.Ka-4. PW-4 S.I. Gajendra Pal Singh proved the inquest report Ext.Ka-5, police form no. 13, Ext.Ka-6, memo regarding taking in supurdagi of Saari as Ext.Ka-7, diagram of the dead body as Ext.Ka-8, letter addressed to C.M.O. as Ext.Ka-9. PW-5 Dr. PW-3 Charan Pal Singh proved the check FIR as Ext.Ka-3, carbon copy of G.D.No. 33 dated 08.03.2004 as Ext.Ka-4. PW-4 S.I. Gajendra Pal Singh proved the inquest report Ext.Ka-5, police form no. 13, Ext.Ka-6, memo regarding taking in supurdagi of Saari as Ext.Ka-7, diagram of the dead body as Ext.Ka-8, letter addressed to C.M.O. as Ext.Ka-9. PW-5 Dr. S.K.Agarwal proved the post mortem examination report as Ext.Ka-10. PW-6 S.K.Singh proved the site plan as Ext.Ka-11, memo regarding recovery of broken bangles Ext.Ka-12 and charge sheet as Ext.Ka-13. 12. The accused in their statements recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. admitted that Smt. Neeraj was married to accused Shailendra on 28.04.1999 according to Hindu rites. Accused Ram Charan, father-in-law of the deceased, further stated that about one year before the death of Smt. Neeraj, her father Kailash Chandra Sharma had come to his house along with two or three persons and demanded Rs. 60,000/- from them from which he proposed to purchase a house where his daughter and his son-in-law would reside separately. He further stated that he had paid the informant Rs. 60,000/- after selling his house and in this respect a tehrir was also written, but the informant Kailash Chandra Sharma did not purchase any separate house for his daughter and son-in-law and prohibited his daughter from visiting her parental home and told her to die in her matrimonial home. 13. In defence paper no. 22-B was proved by PW-1 and marked as Ext.Kha-1 DW-1 Ravindra Singh and DW-2 Niranjan Prasad proved the carbon copy of GD no. 29 dated 07.03.2004 which was marked as Ext.Kha-2. 14. After considering the submissions advanced before him by the learned counsel for the parties and scrutinizing the evidence on record both oral as well as documentary, learned Additional Sessions Judge, Court No. 3, Bulandshahar convicted the appellants Babli alias Bal Kishan and Smt. Gudiya under Section 304-B and 498-A IPC and Section 4 D.P.Act and awarded the aforesaid sentences to them while accused Maya Devi mother-in-law, Bhulla father-in-law and Ram Charan brother in law were acquitted of all the charges. 15. Hence these two appeals. 16. We firstly proceed to examine criminal appeal no. 3754 of 2005. 17. 15. Hence these two appeals. 16. We firstly proceed to examine criminal appeal no. 3754 of 2005. 17. It has been submitted by the learned counsel for the appellants that as far as the conviction of the appellants Babli alias Bal Kishan and Smt. Gudiya who are the Nandoi and Nanad of the deceased is concerned, the same is not warranted by any evidence on record. There is neither any specific allegation of demand of dowry or maltreatment or torture of the deceased by them on account of non fulfillment of any alleged demand for additional dowry. There is further no evidence against them even remotely showing that they tortured or treated the deceased with cruelty soon before her death in connection with any demand of dowry. He further submitted that both the appellants were living separately from the accused Shailendra and his wife since much before the incident and they cannot be said to be beneficiaries of any demand of additional dowry made by deceased's husband from her or her parents. He further submitted that the reliance placed by the trial judge on the solitary circumstance for convicting the appellants under Section 304-B, 498-A IPC and Section 4 D.P.Act that it was on the assurance given by them to the deceased's father that in future deceased would neither be tortured nor maltreated on account of any unfulfilled demand of dowry that the informant had sent her daughter with them to her matrimonial home and within three days of her going with the appellants to her matrimonial home she had died, is wholly unwarranted and perse illegal. He next submitted that admittedly the appellants were living separately from the deceased and her husband, the presumption under Section 304-B IPC is not available against them on account of the deceased having died in her husband's house within seven years of her marriage and her death being unnatural. The conviction of the appellants Babli alias Bal Kishan and Smt. Gudiya, which is not based upon any legally admissible evidence cannot be maintained and is liable to be dismissed. 18. Per contra Smt. Manju Thakur, learned counsel appearing for the State made her submissions in support of the recorded conviction of the appellants under Sections 304-B, 498-A IPC and Section 4 D.P.Act and the sentence awarded to them by the trial judge. 18. Per contra Smt. Manju Thakur, learned counsel appearing for the State made her submissions in support of the recorded conviction of the appellants under Sections 304-B, 498-A IPC and Section 4 D.P.Act and the sentence awarded to them by the trial judge. She further submitted that the prosecution case stood fully proved from the oral as well as documentary evidence on record. Presumption under Section 304-B IPC was clearly attracted against the appellants. The finding of guilt recorded by the learned trial judge in the impugned judgment is based upon cogent evidence and the sentence awarded to the appellants is supported by relevant considerations. The impugned judgment and order do not suffer from any illegality or infirmity warranting any interference by this Court, for the aforesaid reasons, this appeal is liable to be dismissed. 19. Record shows that the prosecution has proved that the death of the deceased had taken place within seven years of her marriage under suspicious circumstances and her death was unnatural. PW-5 Dr. S.K.Agarwal, who had conducted the post mortem on the dead body of the deceased and proved her post mortem report Ext.Ka-10 categorically deposed that keeping in view the injuries, the deceased's death was not possible by hanging. He also deposed that ante mortem injury no.1 could be caused if one side of neck is pressed with a 'danda'. Fracture of cornua of hyoid bone clearly shows that the deceased died due to throttling and not by hanging. He also deposed that bloody fluid was found coming out of nostrils. No dribbling of saliva was found. Underlying tissues were found icchy-mosed. One contusion was found on right ear lobe and the aforesaid unequivocally points to only one hypothesis and that the deceased was strangulated as a result of which she had died due to asphyxia. 20. Thus, the question which arises for our consideration is that once the prosecution had succeeded in proving that the deceased had died an unnatural death in her matrimonial home within seven years of her marriage, the presumption under Section 304-B IPC shall be attracted against the accused-appellants or not. In order to examine the aforesaid issue it would be useful to extract Section 304-B IPC:- "[304B. In order to examine the aforesaid issue it would be useful to extract Section 304-B IPC:- "[304B. Dowry death.--(1) Where the death of a woman is caused by any burns or bodily injury or occurs otherwise than under normal circumstances within seven years of her marriage and it is shown that soon before her death she was subjected to cruelty or har­assment by her husband or any relative of her husband for, or in connection with, any demand for dowry, such death shall be called "dowry death", and such husband or relative shall be deemed to have caused her death. Explanation.--For the purpose of this sub-section, "dowry" shall have the same meaning as in section 2 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 (28 of 1961). (2) Whoever commits dowry death shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than seven years but which may extend to imprisonment for life.]" 21. The Apex Court in the case of Kaliyaperumal Vs. State of Tamil Nadu, AIR 2003 SC 3868 has held that presumption shall be raised only on proving of the following essential:- (I) The question before the court must be whether the accused has committed the dowry death of a woman. (II) The woman was subjected to cruelty or harassment by her husband or his relatives. (III) Such cruelty or harassment was for, or in connection with, any demand for dowry. (IV) Such cruelty or harassment was soon before her death. 22. We now propose to ascertain whether the prosecution has succeeded in proving the four essentials as spelt out by the Apex Court in the case of Kaliyaperumal (supra) for raising the presumption under Section 304-A by scrutinizing the evidence adduced by the prosecution against the appellants in this regard. 23. As already noted, the prosecution in order to prove its charge framed against the accused-appellants had examined PW-1 Kailash Chandra Sharma and PW-2 Hriday Ram as witnesses of fact. 24. PW-1 in his examination-in-chief has not made any specific allegation against the appellants Babali alias Bal Kishan and Smt. Gudiya either any demand of Rs. 50,000/- cash and a scooter as additional dowry from her and her parents or that on account of non fulfillment of the aforesaid alleged demand of additional dowry she was being maltreated or tortured by the appellants Babli @ Bal Kishan and Smt. Gudiya. 50,000/- cash and a scooter as additional dowry from her and her parents or that on account of non fulfillment of the aforesaid alleged demand of additional dowry she was being maltreated or tortured by the appellants Babli @ Bal Kishan and Smt. Gudiya. PW-1 has made general and sweeping allegations against all the family members of his son-in-law Shailendra by referring to them as accused including his father Ram Charan, mother Maya Devi and brother in law (devar) Bhulla, Smt. Gudiya (Nand) and Babli alias Bal Kishan (Nandoi) that they were demanding Rs. 50,000/- cash and one scooter as additional dowry from her daughter and when the aforesaid demand of dowry could not be fulfilled, they started torturing her which compelled the informant to bring his daughter back to his home. However on the assurance given by appellants Babli alias Bal Kishan and Smt. Gudiya, he had sent his daughter back to her matrimonial home with them on 03.03.2004, where she died on 07.03.2004 under unnatural circumstances. 25. PW-1 in his cross examination has admitted that appellants Babli alias Bal Kishan and Smt. Gudiya were living separately from Shailendra and his wife Smt. Neeraj in another house which was about two houses away from the house of Shailendra. 26. There is no evidence on record to prove that either the appellants Babli alias Bal Kishan and Smt. Gudiya were present in the house of the deceased at the time of the occurrence or they were seen entering or coming out of her matrimonial home on the date of the incident. Merely because the appellants Babli alias Bal Kishan and Smt. Gudiya were residing in a house which was two houses away from house of the deceased and her husband Shailendra and they had brought back the deceased from her parental home to her matrimonial home by giving assurance to her father that henceforth the deceased would not be tortured or maltreated in connection with any demand of dowry, their complicity in the commission of the murder of the deceased in the house of her husband cannot be presumed in the absence of any reliable and cogent evidence on record pointing out at their guilt. Even otherwise, the trial court acquitted the father-in-law, mother-in-law and brother-in-law (devar) of the deceased on the same set of evidence on which the appellants have been convicted, on the ground that the prosecution had failed to prove that father-in-law, mother-in-law and brother-in-law (devar) were also living with the married couple whereas qua the appellants it is admitted to the informant that they were living separately from the deceased and her husband. 27. Thus, upon a wholesome appraisal of the facts of the case and a critical evaluation of the evidence on record, we find that the prosecution has miserably failed to prove its case against the appellants Babli alias Bal Kishan and Smt. Gudiya and their conviction recorded by the trial court under Sections 498-A, 304-B IPC and Section 4 D.P.Act by illegally drawing presumption against them under Section 304-B IPC and the sentences awarded to them cannot be sustained and qua the appellants Babli alias Bal Kishan and Smt. Gudiya, the appeal is liable to be allowed. 28. We now proceed to examine the Criminal Appeal no. 4000 of 2005. 29. Sri Sunil Singh, learned counsel appearing for the appellant Shailendra submitted that the appellant Shailendra in criminal appeal no. 4000 of 2005 is confining his submission only on one ground. He expressly gave up his challenge to the finding of the trial court so far as the conviction of the appellant under Section 304-B IPC read with Section 498-A IPC is concerned and has confined his challenge to the quantum of punishment (life imprisonment awarded to him) only. 30. According to Sri Sunil Singh, learned counsel for the appellant Shailendra having regard to all the circumstances which resulted in appellant's conviction and further keeping in view the fact that the appellant has already undergone 12 years of imprisonment and still continues to remain in jail, this Court should alter the award of life sentence to that of one already undergone by the appellant. Sri Sunil Singh further submitted that though Section 304-B IPC prescribes awarding of imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than seven years which may extend for life, yet according to him the instant case is not a case where the trial judge should have awarded life sentence to the appellant. Sri Sunil Singh further submitted that though Section 304-B IPC prescribes awarding of imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than seven years which may extend for life, yet according to him the instant case is not a case where the trial judge should have awarded life sentence to the appellant. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that any term of more than seven years could meet the ends of justice and since in this case 12 years of imprisonment has already been undergone by the appellant, this Court should allow the appeal to this extent by modifying the impugned judgment insofar as the quantum of sentence is concerned and reduce the same from life imprisonment to that of 12 years. 31. Smt. Manju Thakur, learned counsel for the State, while countering the submission made by the counsel for the appellant, submitted that having regard to the totally of circumstances emerging out from the evidence and the fact that a young girl was murdered in her matrimonial home within seven years of her marriage, the award of sentence of life imprisonment to the appellant is fully justified and hence, this Court should not interfere in quantum of sentence. 32. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of entire record of the case, we are inclined to allow the appeal in part finding some force in the submission urged by learned counsel for the appellant. 33. Though the appellant did not make any attempt to assail the finding of his conviction on merits, yet with a view to satisfy ourselves as to whether the finding of the court below on conviction is legally sustainable or not, we perused the record and specially the evidence. Having so perused, we are satisfied that no case is made out to interfere in the findings of the court below on merits for the following reasons. 34. Firstly, Smt. Neeraj died within seven years of her marriage and her death was homicidal. Having so perused, we are satisfied that no case is made out to interfere in the findings of the court below on merits for the following reasons. 34. Firstly, Smt. Neeraj died within seven years of her marriage and her death was homicidal. This event attracted rigor of Section 304-B read with Section 498-A IPC; secondly, her death was due to persistent illegal demands of dowry made by the appellant one after the other from Smt. Neeraj and to her parents; thirdly, the death of Smt. Neeraj had a direct nexus with demand of dowry duly proved by evidence and mentioning therein the reasons; lastly in the light of these established facts, a clear case under Section 304-B IPC read with Section 498-A IPC for drawing presumption as to dowry death under Section 304-B was made out against the appellant. 35. We, therefore, on our part, uphold the finding of conviction and hold that the courts below were justified in holding the appellant guilty of committing offences punishable under Section 304-B read with Section 498-B IPC, which caused death of Smt. Neeraj. 36. Now, the question arises as to whether we should reduce the appellant's sentence and if so, to what extent, as urged by the appellant's counsel. 37. This issue has been the subject matter of debate before the Apex Court in several cases, which arose out of Section 304-B IPC read with Section 498-A and wherein the Apex Court while interpreting the expression "may" occurring in Section 304-B IPC held that it is not mandatory for the Court in every case to award life imprisonment to the accused once he is found guilty of offence under Section 304-B. It was held that the Court could award sentence in exercise of its discretion between seven years to life imprisonment depending upon the facts of each case. It was held that in no case it could be less than seven years and that extreme punishment of life term should be awarded in "rare cases" but not in every case. 38. In the case of Hem Chand Vs. 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. 38. In the case of Hem Chand Vs. 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 12 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....." 39. Similarly this Court in State of Karnataka Vs. M.V. Manjunathegowda and Anr., (2003) 2 SCC 188 , while convicting the accused under Section 304-B awarded 10 years imprisonment in somewhat similar facts. 40. Recently in G.V. Siddaramesh Vs. State of Karnataka, (2010) 3 SCC 152 , this Court while allowing the appeal filed by the accused only on the question of sentence altered the sentence from life term to 10 years on more or less similar facts. Hon'ble H. L. Dattu, J. (as His Lordship then was) speaking for the Bench held as under: "31. In conclusion, we are satisfied that in the facts and circumstances of the case, the appellant was rightly convicted under Section 304-B IPC. 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. 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 IPC, reduce the sentence of imprisonment for life to 10 years' rigorous imprisonment. The other conviction and sentence passed against the appellant are confirmed." 41. 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 be met, if we reduce the sentence of the appellant from life imprisonment to that of 12 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 the appellant the life imprisonment. That apart, we also notice that while awarding life imprisonment, the court below did not assign any reasons. 42. Learned counsel for the State has not been able to cite any authority in support of her submission except to oppose the prayer made by the appellant. 43. For the aforesaid reasons the sentence of life imprisonment awarded to the appellant is liable to be altered. 44. In view of the foregoing discussions:- (i) Criminal appeal no. 3754 of 2005, Babli alias Bal Kishan and Smt. Gudiya Vs. State of U.P. is allowed. The recorded conviction of the appellants Babli alias Bal Kishan and Smt. Gudiya and the sentences awarded to them under Sections 304-B, 498A IPC and 4 D.P.Act are hereby set aside. Appellants Babli alias Bal Kishan and Smt. Gudiya are acquitted of all the charges. The appellants are on bail, they need not surrender. Their bail bonds are cancelled and their sureties are discharged. The appellants Babli alias Bal Kishan and Smt. Gudiya shall, however, comply with the provisions of Section 437-A within one month. (ii) Criminal appeal no. 4000 of 2005 succeeds and is allowed in part. The recorded conviction of the appellant- Shailendra under Sections 304-B read with Section 498-A IPC and 4 D.P. Act is upheld, but the awarded sentence of life imprisonment to him is reduced to 12 years' rigorous imprisonment. (ii) Criminal appeal no. 4000 of 2005 succeeds and is allowed in part. The recorded conviction of the appellant- Shailendra under Sections 304-B read with Section 498-A IPC and 4 D.P. Act is upheld, but the awarded sentence of life imprisonment to him is reduced to 12 years' rigorous imprisonment. 45. There shall, however, be no order as to costs.