Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2017 DIGILAW 2377 (ALL)

BADAM SINGH v. STATE OF U. P.

2017-10-13

P.K.S.BAGHEL, RAJIV GUPTA

body2017
JUDGMENT By the Court.—The Appeal No. 2263 of 1997 has been filed by accused Badam Singh. His mother Smt. Vasdeyee alongwith appellant’s father Raghuvir Singh (since deceased) filed companion Criminal Appeal No. 1883 of 1997. All the three persons were convicted by the trial Court under Section 304-B IPC read with Section 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act. 2. During the pendency of the appeal (Criminal Appeal No. 1883 of 1997) Raghuvir Singh-appellant No. 1 died thus the appeal on his behalf has been abated vide order dated 23.1.2017. 3. The case of the prosecution is briefly encapsulated hereafter. It is the case of prosecution that the accused Badam Singh’s marriage was solemnized with deceased Kusuma in May, 1991. After staying at her matrimonial house for a month, she returned to her father’s home. When she again went back to her matrimonial house, her father-in-law Raghuveer Singh, mother-in-law Smt. Vasdeyee and her husband Badam Singh started taunting her regarding insufficient dowry given by her father. They were demanding Rs. 10,000/-. They often subjected to her harassment for the dowry. When she again returned to her father’s home she mentioned her harassment to her father and told him that if he wants to see her alive, he must pay them Rs. 10,000/- as demanded by them. She also told him that they have threatened her that if she failed to bring the aforesaid amount, she would be killed. 4. When she came back to her husband’s house, her harassment and ill treatment continued unabated and gradually it became uglier. They told her in presence of her husband’s cousin Man Singh and Rajesh Singh that next time if she fails to bring the dowry amount, she may not be alive and her husband will get remarried. 5. It is alleged that the deceased came last time to her father’s house in Shravan (July-August), after that she refused to go back to her matrimonial home because of persistent demand of dowry. However, the PW-2 assured her that he will shortly make arrangement of the dowry amount and shall pay to them. 6. On 17.4.1994 one Ran Vijay Singh informed PW-2 that Kusuma Devi has been murdered. However, the PW-2 assured her that he will shortly make arrangement of the dowry amount and shall pay to them. 6. On 17.4.1994 one Ran Vijay Singh informed PW-2 that Kusuma Devi has been murdered. PW-2 alongwith some persons of the village immediately rushed to her house and when they reached in early morning on 18.4.1994 they found that the body of his daughter and her son Rahul were lying in front of her matrimonial house. He tried to lodge the First Information Report at Police Station Kishni at 08:00 a.m. but same was not registered. Hence, he approached the Senior Superintendent of Police, Mainpuri (Ext.Ka 1). Consequently, the FIR was registered being Case Crime No. 93 of 1994 for the offence punishable under Section 304-B and Section 3 read with Section 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act. Chik FIR (Ex. Ka 15) was prepared. 7. The I.O. after visiting the spot on 25.4.1999 made a site-plan (Ext. Ka-4). He also took into his possession various articles connected with crime and prepared fard vide memo Ext. Ka-5. 8. The inquest was prepared on 18.4.1994 and the body was sent for the autopsy. The doctor in the post-mortem report has found that the cause of death was strangulation and some ante-mortem injuries were also found on the body of the deceased. The same cause has been mentioned for the death of the child Rahul also. 9. The doctor in the post-mortem report has observed several ante-mortem injuries on the person of the deceased. We have perused the post-mortem report. For the sake of convenience, we extract the judgment of the trial Court which has correctly extracted the post-mortem report in its judgment. The relevant part of the judgment reads thus: “1. Contusion 1 cm x 1 cm on the right side front of neck 5 cm below chin. 2. Contusion 1 cm x 0.5 cm on the left side front of neck 6 cm below chin. 3. Contusion 1 cm x 1 cm on the left side of neck 3.5 cm below left angle of mendible. 4. Contusion 2 cm x 1 cm on the left side upper lip just outer to midline. 5. Abraded contusion 5 cm x 3 cm on right knee front part. 6. Abrasion 1 cm x 0.5 cm on the back of left elbow joint. 7. 4. Contusion 2 cm x 1 cm on the left side upper lip just outer to midline. 5. Abraded contusion 5 cm x 3 cm on right knee front part. 6. Abrasion 1 cm x 0.5 cm on the back of left elbow joint. 7. Abrasion 2 cm x 0.5 cm on the front of left forearm 6 cm above wrist joint. 8. Abrasion 1 cm x 0.5 cm on the front of left forearm. 9. Ligature mark, transversely placed 29 cm long and 1 cm wide all around neck 7 cm below chin. Bare of of mark is pale reddish.” 10. The I.O. recorded the statement of some of the witnesses under Section 161 Cr.P.C.. The charge-sheet was submitted to the Magistrate who has committed the matter to the Court of session vide order dated 3.5.1995. 11. The accused appellants were charged that they have caused dowry death of Smt. Kusum Devi in furtherance of the common intention and all of them have strangulated her and her son for and in connection with dowry demand of Rs. 10,000/-, hence, they have committed an offence punishable under Section 304-B of the India Penal Code read with Sections 3 and 4 of the D.P. Act. They were also charged to commit murder of Rahul by asphyxia and hence they have committed an offence punishable under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC. 12. The prosecution in support of the case examined the following witnesses, namely, PW-1 Ramesh Chandra, PW-2 Jodha Singh (father of the deceased/complainant), PW-3 Vimal Singh, PW-4 Ghanshyam, PW-5 Dr. Vinod Kumar Jain, PW-6 Shyam Singh, C.O., PW-7 Cons. Tota Ram. PW-1 Ramesh Chandra was the witness of Panchnama, PW-3 Vimal Singh was brother of the informant, PW-4 Ghanshyam Singh was also brother of the informant, PW-6 Shyam Singh was the Investigating Officer. 13. The defence has produced three witnesses, DW-1 Virbal, DW-2 Sri Ram and DW-3 Smt. Guddi. 14. The prosecution has relied on the documents, which were exhibited as; Ext.-1 typed report, Ext.-2 Post-mortem Report of Kusuma Devi, Ext.-3 Post-mortem Report of Master Rahul, Ext.-4 Inspection Site Plan, Ext.-5 Rope, Ext.-6 Charge-sheet, Ext.-7 Letter of C.M.O., Ext.-8 Form No. 13. 15. The documents which the defence has relied and which were accepted are Inland letter Ext.Kh-1, letter Ext.Kh-2, Inland letter Ext. Kha-3, letter Ext. Kha-4 and Inland letter Ext. Kha-5. 16. 15. The documents which the defence has relied and which were accepted are Inland letter Ext.Kh-1, letter Ext.Kh-2, Inland letter Ext. Kha-3, letter Ext. Kha-4 and Inland letter Ext. Kha-5. 16. The accused Badam Singh in his statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. has denied the allegations made against him but he has stated that he did not have knowledge of the cause of death and did not give any further explanation except denying the charges made against him. The similar statement was made by other accused appellants. 17. The trial Court found that it was a case of strangulation. It was not very much relevant as to whether the victim committed suicide or she was done to death. The Court further recorded that even assuming the defence case that she committed suicide it occurred in unnatural circumstances, therefore, the ingredients of Section 304-B IPC are attracted. The appellant Badam Singh is convicted under Section 304-B to undergo imprisonment for life. Raghuvir Singh and Smt. Vasdeyee the appellants in Criminal Appeal No. 1883 of 1997 were also found guilty under the same Section and they are awarded rigorous imprisonment of seven years and in default one year rigorous imprisonment. The trial Court further found that the accused Badam Singh, Raghuvir Singh and Smt. Vasdeyee were not found guilty for the offence punishable under Section 302 IPC for causing death of Rahul and they were accordingly acquitted under the said section. 18. Aggrieved by the aforesaid judgment two separate appeals have been filed. The Appeal No. 2263 of 1997 has been filed by the Badam Singh and Appeal No. 1883 of 1997 was filed by Raghuvir Singh and Smt. Vasdeyee. As mentioned above, during the pendency of the appeal Raghuvir Singh unfortunately died and the appeal stood abated vide order dated 23.1.2017. 19. We have heard Sri J.N. Singh, learned counsel for the appellants, Sri A.N. Mulla, learned Additional Government Advocate and have perused the original record. 20. The submission of learned counsel for the appellants that the dead body of the deceased was found in a room which has only one door. The door was found to be locked from the inside, hence the possibility of homocide is completely ruled out. He has referred the statement of the witnesses wherein it has been stated that the planks of the door were broken and only then they entered in the room. The door was found to be locked from the inside, hence the possibility of homocide is completely ruled out. He has referred the statement of the witnesses wherein it has been stated that the planks of the door were broken and only then they entered in the room. They found that her body was hanging hence there is no case of strangulation. He further submits that there is no reason why Badam Singh will kill his own son who is only 3-4 years old and for the same reason it cannot be believed that the grandfather and grandmother will kill Rahul their grandson. He further submits that there is no evidence on the record to indicate that there was any demand for dowry by father-in-law and/or mother-in-law. 21. He lastly submits that the trial Court has erred in awarding maximum punishment of life imprisonment under Section 304-B IPC when it has recorded a finding that the accused appellant has not been found guilty under Section 302 for the murder of Rahul. He further submits that if the maximum punishment under Section 304-B of life imprisonment is imposed then the trial Court ought to have recorded reasons for awarding the maximum punishment. He further submits that the accused No. 1 was in jail for 20 years, 3 months and 12 days. The minimum punishment is 7 years under the said offence hence relying on the aforesaid judgments of the Supreme Court he has submitted that the order of the trial Court awarding him the maximum sentence is contrary to law laid down by the Supreme Court. 22. The learned counsel for the appellant No. 2 in the companion Appeal No. 1883 of 1997 submits that no finding at all has been recorded by the trial Court holding guilty the appellant No. 2 Smt. Vasdeyee, mother-in-law. For the conviction under Section 304-B he submits that in the entire judgment, the trial Court has not adverted to the evidence against the appellant No. 2, thus the charge under Section 304-B IPC is not proved. He further submits that there is no evidence at all against Smt. Vasdeyee-the appellant No. 2 hence she has been wrongly convicted by the trial Court and at present she is about 91 years old. He further submits that there is no evidence at all against Smt. Vasdeyee-the appellant No. 2 hence she has been wrongly convicted by the trial Court and at present she is about 91 years old. He has relied upon the judgments of the Supreme Court in the case of Hari Om v. State of Haryana and another, (2014) 10 SCC 577 ; Ranjit Singh v. State of Punjab, (2013) 12 SCC 333 ; and, Hem Chand v. State of Haryana, (1994) 6 SCC 727 . 23. Learned A.G.A. failed to point out any evidence against the appellant No. 2 to prove that she had made any demand of dowry or had harassed the deceased soon before her death. The learned counsel for the appellant No. 2 had led us to the statement of PW-2 Jodha Singh, PW-3 Vimal Singh and PW-4 Ghanshyam Singh. We find that they only made a general allegation that she alongwith other family members demanded dowry. There is no allegation that she harassed the deceased in any manner. 24. Indisputably, the victim Kusuma Devi died in the house of the appellants. It is also a common ground that Kusuma Devi died within seven years of her marriage. Even if, the submission of learned counsel for the appellants is accepted that the deceased committed suicide and before the commission of the said offence she herself strangulated her son Rahul, we find that the trial Court has rightly convicted the appellants for the commission of offence under Section 340-B IPC. The evidence on the record clearly establishes that there was a demand of dowry by the appellants. As per the definition of dowry death in Section 304-B IPC and to invoke the provision of Section 113-B of the Evidence Act, the prosecution has to only establish that “soon before death” the woman had been subjected to cruelty or harassment in respect of demand of dowry. In the present case the prosecution has successfully proved the said fact. The analysis of the evidence has been mentioned in the foregoing paragraphs. 25. A conjoint reading of Section 304-B IPC and Section 113-B of the Evidence Act indicates that if there is a material to show the above fact and the prosecution has also proved that the death was not natural or accidental death then it brings the case within the purview of ‘death occurring otherwise then in normal circumstances’. 26. 25. A conjoint reading of Section 304-B IPC and Section 113-B of the Evidence Act indicates that if there is a material to show the above fact and the prosecution has also proved that the death was not natural or accidental death then it brings the case within the purview of ‘death occurring otherwise then in normal circumstances’. 26. Sections 113-B and 304-B IPC were inserted with a view to curb the increasing menace of dowry of dowry deaths. It was felt that since most of the dowry deaths occur within the house of accused. It is difficult to secure evidence to prove the dowry related deaths. Section 113-B is a presumption of law. It cast an obligation on the Court to raise a presumption that the accused caused the dowry death, however, the said presumption can be raised only if the prosecution shows the following conditions: (i) the marriage was solemnized within 7 years; (ii) the woman was subjected to cruelty or harassment by her husband or his relatives; (iii) such cruelty or harassment was for or any connection with any demand for dowry; (iv) such cruelty or harassment was soon before her death. 27. The word “soon before death” fell for consideration in a large number of cases before the Supreme Court and this Court. The Supreme Court in the case of Hira Lal and others v. State (Government of NCT), Delhi, (2003) 8 SCC 80 , has considered the scope of Section 113-B of the Evidence Act and Section 304-B IPC in the following terms: “9. A conjoint reading of Section 113-B of the Evidence Act and Section 304-B IPC shows that there must be material to show that soon before her death the victim was subjected to cruelty or harassment. The prosecution has to rule out the possibility of a natural or accidental death so as to bring it within the purview of “death occurring otherwise than in normal circumstances”. The expression “soon before” is very relevant where Section 113-B of the Evidence Act and Section 304-B IPC are pressed into service. The prosecution is obliged to show that soon before the occurrence there was cruelty or harassment and only in that case presumption operates. Evidence in that regard has to be led by prosecution. The expression “soon before” is very relevant where Section 113-B of the Evidence Act and Section 304-B IPC are pressed into service. The prosecution is obliged to show that soon before the occurrence there was cruelty or harassment and only in that case presumption operates. Evidence in that regard has to be led by prosecution. “Soon before” is a relative term and it would depend upon circumstances of each case and no straitjacket formula can be laid down as to what would constitute a period of soon before the occurrence. It would be hazardous to indicate any fixed period, and that brings in the importance of a proximity test both for the proof of an offence of dowry death as well as for raising a presumption under Section 113-B of the Evidence Act. The expression “soon before her death” used in the substantive Section 304-B IPC and Section 113-B of the Evidence Act is present with the idea of proximity test. No definite period has been indicated and the expression “soon before” is not defined. A reference to expression “soon before” used in Section 114. Illustration (a) of the Evidence Act is relevant. It lays down that a Court may presume that a man who is in the possession of goods “soon after the theft, is either the thief has received the goods knowing them to be stolen, unless he can account for his possession”. The determination of the period which can come within the term “soon before” is left to be determined by the Courts, depending upon facts and circumstances of each case. Suffice, however, to indicate that the expression “soon before” would normally imply that the interval should not be much between the concerned cruelty or harassment concerned and the death in question. There must be existence of a proximate and live link between the effect of cruelty based on dowry demand and the death concerned. If the alleged incident of cruelty is remote in time and has become stale enough not to disturb mental equilibrium of the woman concerned, it would be of no consequence.” 28. The principle laid down in this case has been uniformly followed by the Supreme Court in a large number of cases. If the alleged incident of cruelty is remote in time and has become stale enough not to disturb mental equilibrium of the woman concerned, it would be of no consequence.” 28. The principle laid down in this case has been uniformly followed by the Supreme Court in a large number of cases. Reference may be made to the judgments in the case of Rajinder Kumar v. State of Haryana, (2015) 4 SCC 215 ; Baljinder Kaur v. State of Punjab, (2015) 2 SCC 629 ; and, Vijay Pal Singh and others v. State of Uttarakhand, (2014) 15 SCC 163 . 29. Bearing in mind the aforesaid principle, we find that all the ingredients under Section 304-B and 113-B are specified in the present case. 30. PW-2 lodged the First Information Report on 24.4.1994 after about a week of the date of incident. He has tried to explain the delay in filing of the First Information Report on the ground that on the same day when he went to the police station, the police refused to lodge First Information Report hence he met the Superintendent of Police who assured him that necessary action shall be taken and he remained in town Mainpuri for three days and was pursuing the matter for lodging the First Information Report. Thereafter his First Information Report was lodged on 24.4.1994 hence he has explained the said delay. 31. The PW-1 is the witness of inquest. In his statement he has stated that he had seen the dead body of Kusuma Devi and Rahul and in his presence the police had come and sealed their bodies and he has signed the inquest report. 32. The PW-2 Jodha Singh who is the father of the deceased in his statement has deposed that in the marriage of his daughter he has given sufficient dowry according to his status but her in-laws were not satisfied with the dowry given by him. 33. After one month of Vidaaee when he went to the house of his daughter to perform the Chauthi then her daughter and some of the respondents of village complained him that in-laws were demanding dowry. She had also told that when she will return from her father’s house she should bring Rs. 10,000/- otherwise she will die to death. 33. After one month of Vidaaee when he went to the house of his daughter to perform the Chauthi then her daughter and some of the respondents of village complained him that in-laws were demanding dowry. She had also told that when she will return from her father’s house she should bring Rs. 10,000/- otherwise she will die to death. In his statement he has mentioned the names of persons who have demanded dowry Man Singh, Rajesh Singh, Raghuvir Singh and his mother. He has also stated that his daughter has told her that she is subjected to harassment by the family members for dowry. 34. In his cross-examination he has explained the delay in filing the First Information Report which has been mentioned above. He has also stated that Kusuma has got education only up to 4th-6th standard and Raghuvir Singh is his son. In the cross-examination he has stated that he does not recognize the handwriting of his son, Raghvir Singh or his daughter. He also stated that he was not in a position to recognize the handwriting which has been shown to him in the Court whether it was of his son or not. He has also stated that his daughter has not sent any letter to him. 35. The PW-3 Vimal Singh is the resident of Deokipurwa (the same village of the PW-2). He has stated that about one and half months before the death of Smt. Kusuma Devi he had gone to same area to settle her sister’s marriage. Before his leaving PW-2 had requested him that he may enquire the welfare of his daughter also who lives in same area. According to him, he stayed in the night at the house of Badam Singh where deceased Smt. Kusuma Devi had told him to convey her father regarding the demand of Rs. 10,000/- by her in-laws. He has further deposed that after returning to his village he told about the said fact to PW-2, whereupon PW-2 told him that he is trying to make an arrangement for Rs. 10,000/- and he will send the money to father of Badam Singh. In the meantime they have put to death Kusuma Devi. 36. 10,000/- by her in-laws. He has further deposed that after returning to his village he told about the said fact to PW-2, whereupon PW-2 told him that he is trying to make an arrangement for Rs. 10,000/- and he will send the money to father of Badam Singh. In the meantime they have put to death Kusuma Devi. 36. The next witness PW-4 Ghanshyam Singh, he is brother of PW-2 and he has also reiterated the same statement of PW-2 and Vimal Singh regarding the demand of dowry by the in-laws of the deceased. 37. The PW-5 Dr. Vinod Kumar Jain has conducted autopsy on the bodies of Smt. Kusuma Devi and his son Rahul and according to him the cause of death was strangulation. He has pointed out that ante-mortem injuries were found on the body of the deceased Kusuma Devi. We have extracted the post-mortem report of the deceased Kusuma and her son in preceding part of the judgment. 38. Similarly the post-mortem report of Master Rahul shows ante-mortem injuries and the same cause of death of the strangulation. The statements of the PW-2 Jodha Singh, PW-3 Vimal also prove the demand of dowry although in the letter she had not mentioned any demand of dowry but the trial Court has rightly recorded its opinion that having regard to the background of the family of the accused it was not expected that newly married lady will make a complaint against her in-laws in the letter, but the oral evidence of the witnesses PW-2, 3 & 4 are consistent with regard to the demand of dowry. 39. From the testimony of PW-2, PW-3 and PW-4 it is evident that the appellants demanded Rs. 10,000/- after solemnization of marriage of the deceased. The statement of PW-2 has been corroborated by PW-3 Vimal Singh and PW-4 Ghanshyam Singh. From a careful perusal of their statement, we do not find any fact which shows that the statement of witnesses are not trustworthy. Hence, the charge against the sole appellant in the present appeal and the appellant No. 1 of the companion appeal, namely, Raghuvir Singh stands proved regarding the demand of dowry. 40. We have also perused the findings recorded by the trial Court in this respect and its findings against the sole appellant in this appeal do not suffer from any infirmity. 40. We have also perused the findings recorded by the trial Court in this respect and its findings against the sole appellant in this appeal do not suffer from any infirmity. As regards the findings against Raghuvir Singh, we do not propose to advert on this issue against him as his appeal stands abated. 41. Insofar as the submission of learned counsel for the appellants that it was a case of suicide and not homicide, it is well-settled that if the dowry related death is a case of suicide, it is considered as one of the modes of death falling within the ambit of Section 304-B IPC. As found earlier in the present case it is established that Kusuma Devi was harassed in connection with the demand of dowry. The appellant Badam Singh in his statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. has not explained the circumstances of her death. It is true that under Section 313 Cr.P.C. there is option with the accused to maintain silence or that simplicitor denial. Alternatively, he can also explain his version and reason for his alleged involvement in the commission of crime. In the present case he has not explained any circumstances and he has adopted one of the course, simplicitor denial. In the case case of Smt. Shanti and another v. State of Haryana, (1991) 1 SCC 371 , the Supreme Court has held that suicide is one of the modes of death falling within the ambit of Section 304-B IPC and Section 498-A of IPC. The Court has analysed interplay of the three important Sections; 304-B, 498-A IPC and Section 113-B of the Evidence Act. Relevant part of the judgment is extracted below: “4. ...Section 113-B of the Evidence Act lays down that if soon before the death such woman has been subjected to cruelty or harassment for or in connection with any demand for dowry, then the Court shall presume that such person has committed dowry death. The meaning of “cruelty” for the purposes of these sections has to be gathered from the language as found in Section 498-A and as per the section “cruelty” means “any wilful conduct which is of such a nature as is likely to drive the woman to commit suicide or to cause grave injury or danger to life etc. The meaning of “cruelty” for the purposes of these sections has to be gathered from the language as found in Section 498-A and as per the section “cruelty” means “any wilful conduct which is of such a nature as is likely to drive the woman to commit suicide or to cause grave injury or danger to life etc. or harassment to coerce her or any other person related to her to meet any unlawful demand for any property or valuable security or is on account of failure by her or any person related to her to meet such demand. ...” 42. In the case of Ashok Kumar v. State of Haryana, (2010) 12 SCC 350 , there were somewhat similar facts. In that case also there was a definite evidence that prior to the death of deceased she had come to her parental home and informed them regarding the demand of dowry. Her father had consoled her that he would arrange money. In the present case also the findings are similar. For the sake of convenience Paragraphs 43 and 44 of the judgment are extracted herein-below: “43. As already noticed, the expression “soon before her death” has to be accorded its appropriate meaning in the facts and circumstances of a given case. In the present case, there is definite evidence to show that nearly 20-22 days prior to her death the deceased had come to her parental home and informed her father about the demand of Rs. 5,000/- and harassment and torture to which she was subjected to by the accused and her in-laws. Her father had consoled her ensuring that he would try to arrange for the same and thereafter took her at her matrimonial home 7-8 days prior to the incident. 44. On the face of the aforesaid evidence read in conjunction with the statement of DW-3, we are convinced that ingredients of Section 304-B have been satisfied in the present case. It was for the accused to prove his defence. He had taken up the stand that the deceased was in love with another boy and did not want to marry the accused and the marriage of the deceased with the accused being against her wishes was the real cause for her to commit the suicide. It was for the accused to prove his defence. He had taken up the stand that the deceased was in love with another boy and did not want to marry the accused and the marriage of the deceased with the accused being against her wishes was the real cause for her to commit the suicide. However, he has led no evidence in this regard and thus, the Court cannot believe this version put forward by the accused.” 43. In view of the above discussion, we find that charge under Section 304-B read with Section 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act against the appellant No. 1 is established. 44. Insofar as the submission of learned counsel for the appellants that the trial Court has awarded maximum punishment of life imprisonment without recording any reason and the punishment is too harsh, we find sufficient force in the said submission. 45. In the case of Hari Om v. State of Haryana and another, (2014) 10 SCC 577 , the Supreme Court has taken the view that extreme punishment of life term should be awarded in rare cases and not in every case. The Court has held thus: “17. This issue has been the subject-matter of debate before this Court in several cases, which arose out of Section 304-B read with Section 498-A and wherein this 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.” 46. Similarly the Supreme Court in the case of Hem Chand v. State of Haryana, (1994) 6 SCC 727 , had reduced the punishment from life imprisonment to ten years. 47. Applying the aforesaid principle in the case, we find that having due regard to the fact that the appellants accused is in jail for the last more than 20 years, we modify the sentence to ten years. 47. Applying the aforesaid principle in the case, we find that having due regard to the fact that the appellants accused is in jail for the last more than 20 years, we modify the sentence to ten years. As regards the submission of learned counsel for the appellant in a criminal appeal No. 1883 of 1997 that the trial Court has not recorded any finding to prove the charges against the appellant No. 2, we find that the said submission merit acceptance. 48. The learned AGA Sri A.N. Mulla also could not point out from the judgment of the trial Court any finding against the appellant No. 2 in the companion appeal. 49. We have carefully considered the deposition of PW-2 Jodha Singh. In his entire statement he has not made any specific statement against the appellant No. 2. In the various letters written by the deceased Smt. Kusuma Devi to her brother, there is no allegation against the appellant No. 2 hence we do not find any evidence in support of the findings of the the trial Court holding the appellant No. 2 guilty under Section 304-B IPC. In absence of any evidence against her we set aside the findings of the trial Court in respect of the appellant No. 2. Accordingly, the appeal of the appellant No. 2 in the companion appeal no 1883 of 1997 is allowed and the conviction of the appellant Vasdeyee is hereby set aside and the appellant is acquitted of the aforesaid charges. Her bail bonds are cancelled and sureties are discharged. 50. In the light of the foregoing discussion, the Criminal Appeal No. 2263 of 1997 (Badam Singh v. State of U.P.) is partly allowed. The conviction of the appellant Badam Singh under Section 304-B read with Section 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act is upheld. However, the sentence (life imprisonment) awarded to the appellant is altered and accordingly is reduced to ten years rigorous imprisonment. To this extent, the impugned judgment stands modified. 51. The appellant Badam Singh has already undergone the sentence awarded to him, as such he be released forthwith, if not wanted in any other case. 52. Let a copy of this judgment and order alongwith Lower Court record be sent to the Lower Court for its intimation and necessary compliance. 53. Judgment be certified and placed on record.