Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2018 DIGILAW 1652 (RAJ)

Sandeep v. State of Rajasthan

2018-08-07

SANGEET LODHA, VIRENDRA KUMAR MATHUR

body2018
JUDGMENT Sangeet Lodha, J. This appeal is directed against judgment dated 18.6.13 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Bhadra in Sessions Case No.22/10, whereby the appellant has been convicted and sentenced for the offences as under : 304-B IPC Life imprisonment with fine Rs. 5,000/-; in default to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year. 498-A IPC Rigorous imprisonment for one year with fine Rs. 1,000/-; in default to further undergo simple imprisonment for one month. 201 IPC Rigorous imprisonment for one year with fine Rs. 1,000/-; in default to further undergone simple imprisonment for one month. 2. Precisely, the prosecution case is that on 4.10.10 complainant Prabhu Ram (PW1) submitted a written report (Ex.P1) to the SHO, Police Station, Bhirani stating that his daughter Raj Bala was married to Sandeep resident of Bhangawa on 8.5.09. At the time of marriage, he had given dowry as per his financial status. However, Sandeep, his mother, father Amar Singh, brother-in-law (Jeth) Suresh & Banshilal and sister-in-law (Jethani) Shilo & Sharda were not happy with the dowry given and used to torture complainant's daughter for bringing insufficient dowry and raised additional dowry demand of Motor Cycle and Rs. 50,000/- in cash. The factum of demand of dowry was intimated by Raj Bala to his father complainant Prabhu Ram when she came to her home. On this, the complainant accompanied by his family members Karn Singh, maternal uncle Bhoop Singh and uncle Balram went to Bhangwa and tried to convince accused persons not to raise demand for dowry, then accused persons told that if their dowry demand is not fulfilled, their daughter will have to bear the consequences. Thereupon, the persons accompanied the complainant convinced them that the demand will be fulfilled on any auspicious occasion but the accused persons for fulfillment of their demand at the earliest used to beat complainant's daughter Raj Bala and even did not serve meal to her on many occasions. On 3.10.10, Raj Bala informed her mother on telephone that all the accused person subjected her to beating in connection with the dowry demand, they should fulfill their demand else she will be killed by them. On 4.10.10 in the morning, the complainant received a call from Village Bhangwa that the Raj Bala has died. On 3.10.10, Raj Bala informed her mother on telephone that all the accused person subjected her to beating in connection with the dowry demand, they should fulfill their demand else she will be killed by them. On 4.10.10 in the morning, the complainant received a call from Village Bhangwa that the Raj Bala has died. On this, when the complainant alongwith his family members went to Bhangwa then saw that Raja Bala's dead body was lying near diggi (water body) and the injuries were seen on her various parts of the body. According to the complainant, accused persons killed her daughter for not fulfilling the demand of dowry. 3. On the basis of the written report (Ex.P1) submitted as aforesaid, the police registered an FIR for offence under Sections 498A, 304B IPC and the investigation commenced. 4. During the investigation, the police drawn various memos and after inquest proceedings, the dead body was subjected to autopsy. The statements of the witnesses were recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C., accused persons were arrested and the recoveries were made. 5. After completion of the investigation, the police filed charge sheet against the accused appellant Sandeep and Beer Singh for offences under Sections 304B, 498A, 201 & 120B IPC before the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bhadra. The matter was committed to the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Bhadra for trial. The trial Judge vide order dated 8.12.10, framed the charge against the accused persons Sandeep and Beer Singh for the offences under Sections 304B, 498A, 201 & 120B IPC. The accused persons denied the charges and claimed trial. During the trial Beer Singh expired and therefore, the proceedings against him were dropped. 6. The prosecution in support of its case examined as many as 22 witnesses viz. P.W.-1 Prabhu, P.W.-2 Balwan, P.W.-3 Ranveer Singh, P.W.-4 Rakesh, P.W.-5 Hari Ram, P.W.-6 Saroj, P.W.-7 Mayawati, P.W.-8 Dara Singh, P.W.-9 Daya Ram, P.W.-10 Geeta, P.W.-11 Pratap Singh, P.W.-12 Kamla, P.W.-13 Bhoop Singh, P.W.- 14 Hawa Singh, P.W.-15 Karn Singh, P.W.-16 Nevil Clark, P.W.-17 Jag Mahendra, P.W.-18 Dr. Vijay Pal Yadav, P.W.-19 Rajpal, P.W.-20 Gajanand, P.W.-21 Vinod and P.W.-22 Lal Bahadur and documentary evidence was exhibited as Ex.P1 to Ex.P46. The accused appellant was examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C., wherein he denied involvement in the offence. He alleged that his wife Raj Bala has been killed by accused Beer Singh, who was maintaining illicit relations with her. Vijay Pal Yadav, P.W.-19 Rajpal, P.W.-20 Gajanand, P.W.-21 Vinod and P.W.-22 Lal Bahadur and documentary evidence was exhibited as Ex.P1 to Ex.P46. The accused appellant was examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C., wherein he denied involvement in the offence. He alleged that his wife Raj Bala has been killed by accused Beer Singh, who was maintaining illicit relations with her. No evidence was led in defence. After completion of evidence, on 2.3.13 the charge framed against the appellant Sandeep was amended and he was charged for the offences under Sections 304B in alternative under Section 302, 498A, 201 & 120B IPC. The parties declined to lead further evidence. 7. The trial court after due consideration of the evidence on record and rival submissions, convicted and sentenced the appellants as indicated above. Hence, this appeal. 8. Learned counsel for the appellant contended that the trial court has committed serious error in convicting the appellant for offences under Sections 304B, 498A & 201 IPC. Learned counsel urged that there is no evidence on record to establish that the deceased was subjected to cruelty or harassment by the appellant for or in connection with any demand of dowry soon before her death. It is submitted that only the interested witnesses namely P.W.-1 Prabhu Ram, the father of the deceased, P.W.-7 Mayawati, the mother of the deceased, P.W.-8 Dara Singh, the uncle (chacha) of the deceased, P.W.-10 Geeta, sister-in-law of the deceased P.W.- 12 Kamla, aunt (mausi) of the deceased and P.W.-14 Hawa Singh, the uncle (mausa) of the deceased have levelled omnibus allegations against all including the appellant regarding demand of dowry and thus, the trial court has seriously erred in convicting the appellant on the testimony of the said interested witnesses. Learned counsel submitted that as a matter of fact all the witnesses who are closely related have given their statements in line of the deposition of P.W.-1 Prabhu Ram, the father of the deceased. Though the allegations against all the persons were there for demand of dowry, however, the police did not file challan against Amar Singh, Phuli and other family members of the appellant. Learned counsel submitted that no specific date and time regarding the demand of dowry is mentioned by the witnesses in their deposition. Though the allegations against all the persons were there for demand of dowry, however, the police did not file challan against Amar Singh, Phuli and other family members of the appellant. Learned counsel submitted that no specific date and time regarding the demand of dowry is mentioned by the witnesses in their deposition. It is submitted that as per the complainant he was informed about the demand of dowry just a day before the incident on telephone by her daughter but the call details were not produced to prove the conversation. Drawing the attention of the Court to the post mortem report (Ex.P37), learned counsel submitted that the cause of death was opined to be asphyxia however, the final opinion was to be given after chemical examination but no such report was produced by the prosecution. Learned counsel submitted that the death by strangulation or asphyxia was not proved and therefore, it cannot be said that the deceased had died unnatural death and therefore, the provisions of Section 304B IPC are not attracted. Lastly, learned counsel contended that for offence under Section 304B IPC, life imprisonment, which is the maximum punishment prescribed and therefore, in absence of any aggravating circumstances, the extreme punishment of life imprisonment imposed is not justified. Learned counsel would submit that without any justification the extreme punishment imposed is against the sentencing principles. 9. On the other hand, learned public prosecutor submitted that from bare perusal of the statements of P.W.-1 Prabhu Ram, P.W.-7 Mayawati, P.W.-8 Dara Singh, P.W.-9 Dayaram, P.W.-10 Geeta, P.W.-12 Kamla, and P.W.-14 Hawa Singh, it is apparent that soon before the death, deceased-Raj Bala was subjected to cruelty and harassment for and in connection with the demand for dowry and therefore, the conviction of the appellant by the trial court after due appreciation of the evidence on record cannot be faulted with. Learned public prosecutor submitted that in the instant case, in view of persistent demand of dowry on the part of the appellant, which continued even a day before the incident, by virtue of provisions of Section 113B of the Evidence Act, the presumption has to be raised that the appellant caused dowry death of Raj Bala and thus, the judgment under appeal does not warrant any interference by this Court in exercise of its appellate jurisdiction. 10. 10. We have considered the rival submissions and carefully scanned the evidence adduced at the trial. 11. It is settled law that the evidence of interested witness cannot be discarded merely on the ground that they are interested witnesses. However, it is necessary that the evidence of such witnesses is scrutinized by the court carefully. 12. In Agnoo vs. State of U.P., (1971) AIR SC 296, the Supreme Court held that the fact of relationship would add to value of his evidence because he would be interested in getting the real culprit rather than innocent persons punished. 13. In Kartik Mallhar vs. State of Bihar, (1995) 8 JT 425 (SC), the Apex Court observed: "we may also observe that the ground that the witness being a close relative and consequently being partisan witness should not be relied upon, has no substance. This theory was repelled by this court as early as in Deelip Singh, (1953) AIR SC 364 in which this court expressed its surprise over the impression which prevailed in the minds of the members of the bar that relatives were not independent witness Speaking through VIVIAN BOSE J., the Court observed para 25 of AIR 1953(SC): "We are unable to agree with the learned Judges of the High Court that the testimony of the two eye witnesses requires corroboration. If the foundation for such an observation is based on the fact that the witnesses are women and that the facts of seven men hands on their testimony, we know of no such rules. If it is grounded on the reason that they are closely related to the deceased we are unable to concur." 14. Suffice it to say that the evidence of close relatives of the deceased is not liable to be rejected on the ground that they are interested witnesses. But then, their evidence needs to be scrutinized by the court carefully. 15. Before considering the testimony of witnesses examined by the prosecution to arrive at the conclusion as to whether the deceased was subjected to cruelty and harassment by the appellants soon before her death in connection with any demand for dowry, we deem it appropriate to refer to the relevant provisions and the case law on the issue involved in the matter. 16. 16. Indisputably, to attract the provisions of Section 304B IPC, following ingredients must be satisfied : (i) The death of a woman should be caused by any burns or bodily injuries or otherwise than under normal circumstances. (ii) Such a death should have occurred within seven years of her marriage. (iii) She must have been subjected to cruelty or harassment by her husband or any relative of her husband. (iv) Such cruelty or harassment should be for or in connection with any demand of dowry. (v) Such cruelty or harassment should be shown to have been meted out to the woman soon before her death. 17. As per Section 113B of the Evidence Act, the presumption as to dowry death shall be raised when it is shown that soon before the death the woman had been subjected to cruelty or harassment by the accused persons for and in connection with the demand of dowry. In other words, on the proof of the essential conditions noticed above, the Court is under an obligation to raise the presumption that the accused caused the dowry death. 18. In Kans Raj vs. State of Punjab and Others, (2000) 5 SCC 207 , a Bench of 3 Learned Judges of the Hon'ble Supreme Court observed : "It is further contended on behalf of the respondents that the statements of the deceased referred to the instances could not be termed to be cruelty or harassment by the husband soon before her death. "Soon before" is a relative term which is required to be considered under specific circumstances of each case and no straitjacket formula can be laid down by fixing any time-limit. This expression is pregnant with the idea of proximity test. The term "soon before" is not synonymous with the term "immediately before" and is opposite of the expression "soon after" as used and understood in Section 114, Illustration (a) of the Evidence Act. These words would imply that the internal should not be too long between the time of making the statement and the death. It contemplates the reasonable time which, as earlier noticed, has to be understood and determined under the peculiar circumstances of each case. In relation to dowry deaths, the circumstances showing the existence of cruelty or harassment to the deceased are not restricted to a particular instance but normally refer to a course of conduct. It contemplates the reasonable time which, as earlier noticed, has to be understood and determined under the peculiar circumstances of each case. In relation to dowry deaths, the circumstances showing the existence of cruelty or harassment to the deceased are not restricted to a particular instance but normally refer to a course of conduct. Such conduct may be spread over a period of time. If the cruelty or harassment or demand for dowry is shown to have persisted, it shall be deemed to be "soon before death" if any other intervening circumstance showing the non-existence of such treatment is not brought on record, before such alleged treatment and the date of death. It does not, however, mean that such time can be stretched to any period. Proximate and live link between the effect of cruelty based on dowry demand and the consequential death is required to be proved by the prosecution. The demand of dowry, cruelty or harassment based upon such demand and the date of death should not be too remote in time which, under the circumstances, be treated as having become stale enough". 19. In K. Prema S. Rao Vs. Yadla Srinivasa Rao, (2003) AIR SC 11 the Hon'ble Supreme Court examined the words 'soon before her death' and observed: "To attract the provisions of S.304-B, IPC, one of the main ingredients of the offence which is required to be established is that "Soon before her death" she was subjected to cruelty and harassment 'in connection with the demand for dowry'. There is no evidence on record to show that the land was demanded as a dowry. It was given by the father to the deceased in marriage ritual as "pasupukumuma". The harassment or cruelty meted out to the deceased wife by the husband after the marriage to force her to transfer the land in his name was 'not in connection with any demand for dowry'. One of the main ingredients of the offence of "demand of dowry" being absent in this case, the accused could not be said to have committed offence under S.304-B." 20. Analysing the words 'soon before her death', the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Kamesh Panjiyar Vs. One of the main ingredients of the offence of "demand of dowry" being absent in this case, the accused could not be said to have committed offence under S.304-B." 20. Analysing the words 'soon before her death', the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Kamesh Panjiyar Vs. State of Bihar, (2005) 2 SCC 388 , held : "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 "for or in connection with the demand of dowry". 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 her death" is very relevant where Section 113-B of the Evidence Act and Section 304-B IPC are pressed into service. 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 the 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 as indicated by the said expression 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. A reference to the expression "soon before" used in Section 114 illustration (a) of the Evidence Act is relevant. The determination of the period which can come within the term "soon before" under section 114 illustration (a) is left to be determined by the courts, depending upon the 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 cruelty or harassment concerned and the death in question. There must be existence of a proximate and live link between the effects of cruelty based on dowry demand and the death concerned. Suffice, however, to indicate that the expression "soon before" would normally imply that the interval should not be much between the cruelty or harassment concerned and the death in question. There must be existence of a proximate and live link between the effects 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." 21. In Biswajit Halder @ Babu Halder Vs. State of W.B., (2008) 1 SCC(Cri) 172, the Hon'ble Apex Court observed: "13. If Section 304-B IPC is read together with Section 113- B of the Evidence Act, a comprehensive picture emerges that if a married woman dies in unnatural circumstances at her matrimonial home within 7 years from her marriage and there are allegations of cruelty or harassment upon such married woman for or in connection with demand of dowry by the husband or relatives of the husband, the case would squarely come under "dowry death" and there shall be a presumption against the husband the relatives." 22. In Durga Prasad Vs. State of M.P., (2010) 3 SCC(Cri) 1154, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that in order to hold an accused guilty of an offence u/s 304-B IPC, it has to be shown that apart from the fact that the woman died on account of burn or bodily injury, otherwise than in the normal circumstances, within 7 years of her marriage, it has also to be shown that soon before her death, she was subjected to cruelty or harassment by her husband or any relative of husband for, or in connection with any demand for dowry. Only then would such death be called "dowry death" and such husband or relative shall be deemed to have caused death of the woman concerned. 23. In the backdrop of the position of law settled as above, we shall now proceed to examine whether the accusation against the appellants stand established beyond reasonable doubt on the basis of evidence on record. 24. Indisputably, the deceased Raj Bala and the appellant Sandeep were married on 8.5.09 i.e. about 1 years before the incident. As per the post mortem report (Ex.P37) cause of death was opined to be asphyxia, however, the final opinion was reserved awaiting report of chemical examination. P.W.-18 Dr. 24. Indisputably, the deceased Raj Bala and the appellant Sandeep were married on 8.5.09 i.e. about 1 years before the incident. As per the post mortem report (Ex.P37) cause of death was opined to be asphyxia, however, the final opinion was reserved awaiting report of chemical examination. P.W.-18 Dr. Vijay Pal Yadav, who was member of the Medical Board, which conducted autopsy of the dead body of Raj Bala, the probable cause of death was asphyxia. He deposed that at the time of examination both the lungs were found congested and water & blood was oozing out. It is true that the prosecution did not procure the chemical examination report but then, the dead body of the deceased was found immersed in water in diggi and the description of the body and the injuries found on the person of the deceased as reflected in Panchanama (Ex.P2) and post mortem report (Ex.P37) clearly establishes that the deceased had died unnatural death. It is pertinent to note that the accused Sandeep who was present at the place of occurrence absconded and was later arrested on 17.10.10. It is not even the stand of the accused appellant in his statement recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. that Raj Bala had died natural death rather, he has taken the stand that Beer Singh, who is his cousin had illicit relations with his wife and when he was sleeping at home, Beer Singh after killing Raj Bala while carrying the dead body on motor cycle thrown it in diggi. Thus, the contention sought to be raised by the counsel for the appellant that Raj Bala had died natural death, is absolutely baseless. 25. The next question which needs to be examined is as to whether on the basis of the evidence on record the prosecution has proved that the deceased has been subjected to harassment and cruelty by the appellant soon before her death for or in connection with any demand of dowry. 26. P.W.-1 Prabhu Ram, the father of the deceased, has deposed that after six months of marriage inter alia Sandeep had raised demand for motor cycle and Rs. 50,000/- in cash, which was revealed to him by her daughter when she came to her paternal home. 26. P.W.-1 Prabhu Ram, the father of the deceased, has deposed that after six months of marriage inter alia Sandeep had raised demand for motor cycle and Rs. 50,000/- in cash, which was revealed to him by her daughter when she came to her paternal home. Thereupon, he alongwith Balveer, Karn Singh and Bhoop Singh went to Village Bhangwa, a panchyat was convened where they undertook to do something after ripening of the crop. The accused persons including Sandeep threaten that if the demand of dowry is not fulfilled, it will not be good for Raj Bala. He deposed that Raj Bala was used to be beaten for not fulfilling the demand of dowry. He categorically deposed that on 3.10.10, Raj Bala telephoned her mother that accused persons are raising demand for dowry and if their demand is not fulfilled, they will kill her and on the next day, telephonic message was received from Bhangwa that Raj Bala has died and her body is lying near a diggi. He deposed that he alongwith his family members went to Bhangwa and saw that the dead body of his daughter was lying near the diggi and there were marks of injuries. 27. P.W.-6 Saroj, sister-in-law of deceased Raj Bala being wife of her cousin, deposed that after six months of the marriage Raj Bala told her that Sandeep is demanding a motor cycle and Rs. 50,000/- in cash, he beats her and does not serve the meal. His mother-in-law, father-in-law, brother-in-law and sister-in-law also used to harass her. She deposed that just a day before the incident, Raj Bala informed his mother regarding the dowry demand raised by Sandeep and threatening given to kill her. This was revealed to her by mother of the deceased Raj Bala. Mother of the Raj Bala talked with father-in-law of Raj Bala, who said that there is nothing to worry about, he will be coming to Karanpur with Raj Bala in the morning and on the next day morning, it was revealed that Raj Bala has died. 28. P.W.-7 Mayawati, the mother of the deceased, deposed that after six months of the marriage when Raj Bala came to her paternal home, she revealed that Sandeep is raising demand for motor cycle and Rs. 50,000/- in cash and on account of non-fulfillment of demand, she is being tortured and his family members also supports him. 28. P.W.-7 Mayawati, the mother of the deceased, deposed that after six months of the marriage when Raj Bala came to her paternal home, she revealed that Sandeep is raising demand for motor cycle and Rs. 50,000/- in cash and on account of non-fulfillment of demand, she is being tortured and his family members also supports him. Then her husband Prabhu, brother in law Bala, Karan Singh etc. went to Bhangwa and talked to Sandeep and his family members, who were convinced and thereafter, Sandeep had taken Raj Bala to her matrimonial home. After 20 days, Raj Bala informed her on telephone that on account of non fulfillment of demand of motor cycle and Rs. 50,000/-, Sandeep has beaten her. They planned to go Bhangwa but before they could go there, a message was received that her daughter has been killed and thrown in Diggi. 29. The deposition of P.W.8-Dara Singh, P.W.9-Dayaram, P.W.12- Kamla, P.W.13-Bhup Singh and P.W.14-Hawa Singh is also in line of the deposition of P.W.1-Prabhu Ram, P.W.6-Saroj and P.W.7- Mayawati. 30. We find that the statements of the aforesaid witnesses examined by the prosecution do not suffer from contradiction or embellishment in respect of material particulars i.e. the demand of dowry, the cruel treatment meted out to the deceased for and in connection with the demand of dowry and the period during which such demand was raised. We do not find any reason not to believe the testimony of these witnesses, we find them truthful and reliable. 31. Having considered the evidence adduced by the prosecution as aforesaid, we are of the considered opinion that the appellant made persistent demand for motor cycle and Rs. 50,000/- in cash just after six months of marriage. On the demand of dowry being raised by the appellant, the father and other family members of the deceased tried to pacify him saying that they will be able to do something after ripening of the crop, however, the demand continued even a day before the incident. On the basis of the evidence on record, it is clearly established that there was persistent demand of dowry soon before the death of Raj Bala and she was harassed and ill treated by the appellant on account of non fulfillment of demand and she died in the circumstances which cannot be considered to be normal. On the basis of the evidence on record, it is clearly established that there was persistent demand of dowry soon before the death of Raj Bala and she was harassed and ill treated by the appellant on account of non fulfillment of demand and she died in the circumstances which cannot be considered to be normal. We are satisfied that the prosecution has been able to establish the charge against the appellant under Sections 304B & 498A IPC beyond reasonable doubt. 32. As discussed hereinabove, it stands established that Raj Bala had died unnatural death. The stand of the defence that Beer Singh killed Raj Bala is not found proved on the basis of any cogent evidence on record rather, the presence of co-accused Beer Singh is found doubtful. The presence of the appellant at the place of occurrence stands established, he had absconded and was later arrested on 17.10.10. There is no explanation furnished by the appellant regarding the injuries on the person of the deceased. The motor cycle on which the dead body of the deceased was carried to diggi was recovered at the instance of the appellant. Thus, apparently, the appellant removed the dead body of the deceased to cause disappearance of the evidence relating to the crime committed. Thus, the learned trial Judge has rightly found the charge of offence under Section 201 IPC proved against the appellant. 33. In view of the discussion above, the conviction of the appellant by the learned trial Judge for offences under Sections 304B, 498A and 201 IPC does not suffer from any infirmity or illegality warranting interference by this court in exercise of its appellate jurisdiction. 34. Coming to the sentence, it is noticed that under Section 304B IPC on the charge being proved, the court is given discretion to impose proper sentence which could be not less than 7 years but may extend to imprisonment for life. 35. In 'Ram Naresh & Ors. vs. the State of Chhatisgarh, (2012) 4 SCC 257 ', the Hon'ble Supreme Court while considering the elaborate principles of sentencing laid down in Bachan Singh vs. State of Punjab, (1980) 2 SCC 684 ', and 'Machhi Singh & Ors. 35. In 'Ram Naresh & Ors. vs. the State of Chhatisgarh, (2012) 4 SCC 257 ', the Hon'ble Supreme Court while considering the elaborate principles of sentencing laid down in Bachan Singh vs. State of Punjab, (1980) 2 SCC 684 ', and 'Machhi Singh & Ors. vs. State of Punjab, (1983) 3 SCC 470 ', while dealing with the question of death sentence, observed that the cumulative effect of both aggravating and mitigating circumstances need to be taken into account while awarding the sentence. The court observed : "76. The law enunciated by this Court in its recent Judgments, as already noticed adds and elaborates the principles that were stated in Bachan Singh and thereafter, in Machhi Singh. The aforesaid Judgments, primarily dissect these principles into two different compartments-one being the "aggravating circumstances" while the other being the "mitigating circumstances". The court would consider the cumulative effect of both these aspects and normally, it may not be very appropriate for the court to decide the most significant aspect of sentencing policy with reference to one of the classes under any of the following heads while completely ignoring other classes under other heads. To balance the two is the primary duty of the court. It will be appropriate for the court to come to a final conclusion balancing the exercise that would help to administer the criminal justice system better and provide an effective and meaningful reasoning by the court as contemplated Under Section 354(3) Code of Criminal Procedure." The court while enumerating certain aggravating and mitigating circumstances and determining the questions relatable to sentencing policy further observed: "79. The court then would a draw a balance sheet of aggravating and mitigating circumstances. Both aspects have to be given their respective weightage. The court has to strike a balance between the two and see towards which side the scale/balance of justice tilts. The principle of proportion between the crime and the punishment is the principle of "just deserts" that serves as the foundation of every criminal sentence that is justifiable. In other words, the "doctrine of proportionality" has a valuable application to the sentencing policy under the Indian criminal jurisprudence. Thus, the court will not only have to examine what is just but also as to what the Accused deserves keeping in view the impact on the society at large. 80. In other words, the "doctrine of proportionality" has a valuable application to the sentencing policy under the Indian criminal jurisprudence. Thus, the court will not only have to examine what is just but also as to what the Accused deserves keeping in view the impact on the society at large. 80. Every punishment imposed is bound to have its effect not only on the Accused alone, but also on the society as a whole. Thus, the courts should consider retributive and deterrent aspect of punishment while imposing the extreme punishment of death." 36. In 'Sunil Dutt Sharma Vs. State (Government of NCT of Delhi), (2014) 4 SCC 375 ', the Hon'ble Supreme Court while dealing with a matter regarding conviction for offence under Section 304 B IPC, wherein the accused was sentenced to suffer maximum punishment of life imprisonment relying upon the principles of sentencing evolved by the court over the years in context of death penalty, observed: "12. Are we to understand that the quest and search for a sound jurisprudential basis for imposing a particular sentence on an offender is destined to remain elusive and the sentencing parameters in this country are bound to remain Judge-centric? The issue though predominantly dealt with in the context of cases involving the death penalty has tremendous significance to the Criminal Jurisprudence of the country inasmuch as in addition to the numerous offences under various special laws in force, hundreds of offences are enumerated in the Penal Code, punishment for which could extend from a single day to 10 years or even for life, a situation made possible by the use of the seemingly same expressions in different provisions of the Penal Code as noticed in the opening part of this order. 13. As noticed, the "net value" of the huge number of in-depth exercises performed since Jagmohan Singh has been effectively and systematically culled out in Sangeet and Shanker Kisanrao Khade. The identified principles could provide a sound objective basis for sentencing thereby minimising individualised and Judge-centric perspectives. Such principles bear a fair amount of affinity to the principles applied in foreign jurisdictions, a resume of which is available in the decision of this Court in State of Punjab v. Prem Sagar. The difference is not in the identity of the principles: it lies in the realm of application thereof to individual situations. Such principles bear a fair amount of affinity to the principles applied in foreign jurisdictions, a resume of which is available in the decision of this Court in State of Punjab v. Prem Sagar. The difference is not in the identity of the principles: it lies in the realm of application thereof to individual situations. While in India application of the principles is left to the Judge hearing the case, in certain foreign jurisdictions such principles are formulated under the authority of the statute and are applied on principles of categorisation of offences which approach, however, has been found by the Constitution Bench in Bachan Singh to be inappropriate to our system. The principles being clearly evolved and securely entrenched, perhaps, the answer lies in consistency in approach. 14. To revert to the main stream of the case, we see no reason as to why the principles of sentencing evolved by this Court over the years though largely in the context of the death penalty will not be applicable to all lesser sentences so long as the sentencing Judge is vested with the discretion to award a lesser or a higher sentence resembling the swing of the pendulum from the minimum to the maximum. In fact, we are reminded of the age-old infallible logic that what is good to one situation would hold to be equally good to another like situation. Besides, para 163 (italicised portion) of Bachan Singh, reproduced earlier (see at SCC p.385-f, above), bears testimony to the above fact." 37. In the instant case, undoubtedly the appellant is found guilty of charge under Section 304B IPC but there is no aggravating circumstance found proved against the appellant. It is not the prosecution case that the appellant is habitual offender. It is not disputed before us that the conduct of the appellant during his stay in jail is found satisfactory. The appellant was arrested on 17.10.10 and thereafter, he is behind the bars till this date and thus, he has already undergone sentence for more than 7 years. Thus, taking into consideration the absence of aggravating circumstances and the existence of mitigating circumstances following the view taken by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the decisions referred supra, we consider it appropriate to modify the order on sentence and reduce the sentence of life awarded by the learned trial Judge to the sentence already undergone. 38. Thus, taking into consideration the absence of aggravating circumstances and the existence of mitigating circumstances following the view taken by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the decisions referred supra, we consider it appropriate to modify the order on sentence and reduce the sentence of life awarded by the learned trial Judge to the sentence already undergone. 38. In the result, the appeal is partly allowed. The judgment and order under appeal passed by the learned trial Judge convicting the appellant Sandeep for offences under Sections 304B, 498A and 201 IPC is upheld. However, we modify the order of the learned trial Judge on sentence and reduce the sentence of imprisonment of life awarded to the appellant to the sentence already undergone. The appellant shall be released from jail forthwith, if not required in any other case. However, the appellant shall furnish a personal bond in sum of Rs. 50,000/- and a surety of like amount to the satisfaction of the learned trial Judge in conformity with the provisions of Section 437A Cr.P.C.