JUDGMENT : K.J. Thaker, J. 1. This appeal challenges the judgment and order dated 28.08.2008 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Court No.10, Aligarh in Sessions Trial No. 597 of 2006 convicting accused-appellants under Section 304-B of Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter referred to as 'IPC') and sentenced him to undergo imprisonment for life and under Section 498-A of I.P.C. three-three years rigorous imprisonment with fine of Rs.5,000/- and in default of payment of fine, further to undergo imprisonment for six months to all the appellants. 2. Factual scenario as culled out from the record and the judgment of the Court below is that the accused-appellant Harish Kumar is the husband of the deceased who died after seven days suffering out of septicemia. He is in jail since 2006 namely since the date incident occurred. The other co-accused namely the father-in-law-Naurangi Lal of the deceased breathed his last therefore qua him the appeal is abated, the third accused is minor and a juvenile, hence she was tried by Juvenile Board and as per the submission of the counsel for the appellant she has been acquitted, the mother-in-law - Kashtoori Devi who was in jail for two and a half year and thereafter she has been released on bail by this Court. The genesis of the incident occurred when the brother of the deceased was informed that his sister who had been sent to the matrimonial home on 05.12.2005, her body is seen to have been ablazed. Thereafter, she was shifted to the hospital with burn injuries, there was superficial to deep burn injuries and the injuries were 40% superficial to deep burn injuries, she was admitted in the hospital immediately on the date of the incident and after a period of about 7 days i.e. on 13.12.2005 at about 6:50 p.m., she breathed her last. It is under these circumstances that the prosecution was moved into motion. The investigation culminated into charge-sheet being laid against all the four accused. 3. The offence being triable by the court of Sessions. The learned Magisterial Trial Court committed the accused to the Sessions Court. The learned Sessions Judge, summoned the accused from jail those who are not on bail and after completing all the formalities the accused-appellants were charged on 28.08.2006 and an alternative charge on 16.01.2007 for commission of offence under Sections 323, 498A, 504 and 304-B I.P.C. 4. The learned Magisterial Trial Court committed the accused to the Sessions Court. The learned Sessions Judge, summoned the accused from jail those who are not on bail and after completing all the formalities the accused-appellants were charged on 28.08.2006 and an alternative charge on 16.01.2007 for commission of offence under Sections 323, 498A, 504 and 304-B I.P.C. 4. On being read over the charges, the accused pleaded not guilty and wanted to be tried, hence, the trial started and the prosecution examined 9 witnesses who are as follows : 1. Deepu @ Deepak Kumar PW1 2. Smt. Kamla Devi PW2 3. Head Moharir-59 Ram Chandra Rathore PW3 4. Dr. N.K. Tandon PW4 5. Dr. Hansraj Singh PW5 6. S.I. Raghuraj Singh Harij PW6 7. Anand Kumar PW7 8. S.I. Chiraunji Lal PW8 9. Ratnesh Chaturvedi PW9 And said witnesses tried to prove the documentary evidence produced by the prosecution. On prosecution the evidence been laid end after closing process Kashtoori, Naurangi Lal and Pinky are the accused whose statement were recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. The statement of Section 313 Cr.P.C. is one of denial. 5. In support of ocular version following documents were filed : 1. F.I.R. Ex.Ka.2 2. Written Report Ex.Ka.1 3. Injury Report Ex. Ka.4 4. Post-mortem Report Ex. Ka.5 5. Panchayatnama Ex.Ka.6 5. Site Plan with Index Ex.Ka.12 6. Charge-sheet Ex.Ka.11 6. At the end of the trial and after recording the statement of the accused under section 313 of Cr.P.C., and hearing arguments on behalf of prosecution and the defence, the learned Trial Court convicted the three accused for commission for offence under Section 304-B of I.P.C. for life imprisonment and under Section 498-A of I.P.C. three-three years imprisonment with Rs.5000/- as fine. The State nor the private respondent preferred any appeal. 7. Heard Sri Sunil Kumar Upadhaya, learned counsel for the appellant, Sri Patanjali Mishra, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record. 8. As far as father-in-law of the deceased is concerned as we have narrated herein above, the case has abated that takes us to the evidence against the mother-in-law. Even if we go the by the oral dying declaration which is submitted by the learned counsel for the State that the deceased orally confined to her brother which is borne out from the F.I.R that her husband Harish Kumar has set her ablaze. Even if we go the by the oral dying declaration which is submitted by the learned counsel for the State that the deceased orally confined to her brother which is borne out from the F.I.R that her husband Harish Kumar has set her ablaze. This dying declaration has been heavily relied by the Counsel for the State and has further submitted the name of all the accused which have been given by the deceased in dying declaration to the brother. 9. While going through the evidence of the witnesses, it cannot be said that Section 498A read with Section 304B of I.P.C is not made out qua the accused no. 1 - Harish Kumar. This takes us to the evidence against the mother-in-law - Kashtoori Devi, while going through the oral testimony of P.W.-1, P.W.-2 and P.W.-3 we do not find any reason to believe that she was a party to the incident, her presence has not been proved. There is no overt act of mother-in-law even in the oral dying declaration. There are 40% burns. The investigation of the investigating authority qua the mother-in-law appears to be faulty. We, therefore, cannot uphold the conviction of the mother-in-law-Kashtoori Devi. We give benefit of doubt to the mother in law namely Kashtoori Devi. 10. This takes us to the question of applicability of Section 304B of I.P.C to the facts of this case. The learned counsel for the appellant has relied on the following decisions so as to contend that punishment of life imprisonment pronounced by learned trial Judge is bad:- i. Ganesh Babu @ Ganesh Vs. State of Karnataka, (2020 Lawsuit (Kar) 658; ii. Kashmira Devi Vs. State of Uttraakhand and Ors., ( AIR 2020 SC 652 ); iii. Mirza Iqbal @ Golu and Another Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and Another, [2021 0 Supreme(SC) 795] 11. It would be relevant for us to refer a recent judgment of this High Court in Criminal Appeal No. 2878 of 2013 :- 14. While coming to the conclusion that the accused is the perpetrator of the offence, whether sentence of life imprisonment and fine is adequate or the sentence requires to be modified in the facts and circumstances of this case and in the light of certain judicial pronouncements and precedents applicable in such matters. This Court would refer to the following precedents, namely, Mohd. Giasuddin Vs. This Court would refer to the following precedents, namely, Mohd. Giasuddin Vs. State of A.P., [ AIR 1977 SC 1926 ], explaining rehabilitary & reformative aspects in sentencing it has been observed by the Supreme Court: "Crime is a pathological aberration. The criminal can ordinarily be redeemed and the state has to rehabilitate rather than avenge. The sub-culture that leads to ante-social behaviour has to be countered not by undue cruelty but by reculturization. Therefore, the focus of interest in penology in the individual and the goal is salvaging him for the society. The infliction of harsh and savage punishment is thus a relic of past and regressive times. The human today vies sentencing as a process of reshaping a person who has deteriorated into criminality and the modern community has a primary stake in the rehabilitation of the offender as a means of a social defence. Hence a therapeutic, rather than an 'in terrorem' outlook should prevail in our criminal courts, since brutal incarceration of the person merely produces laceration of his mind. If you are to punish a man retributively, you must injure him. If you are to reform him, you must improve him and, men are not improved by injuries." 15. 'Proper Sentence' was explained in Deo Narain Mandal Vs. State of U.P. [ (2004) 7 SCC 257 ] by observing that Sentence should not be either excessively harsh or ridiculously low. While determining the quantum of sentence, the court should bear in mind the 'principle of proportionality'. Sentence should be based on facts of a given case. Gravity of offence, manner of commission of crime, age and sex of accused should be taken into account. Discretion of Court in awarding sentence cannot be exercised arbitrarily or whimsically. 16. In Ravada Sasikala vs. State of A.P. AIR 2017 SC 1166 , the Supreme Court referred the judgments in Jameel vs. State of U.P. [ (2010) 12 SCC 532 ], Guru Basavraj vs. State of Karnatak, [ (2012) 8 SCC 734 ], Sumer Singh vs. Surajbhan Singh, [ (2014) 7 SCC 323 ], State of Punjab vs. Bawa Singh, [ (2015) 3 SCC 441 ], and Raj Bala vs. State of Haryana, [ (2016) 1 SCC 463 ] and has reiterated that, in operating the sentencing system, law should adopt corrective machinery or deterrence based on factual matrix. Facts and given circumstances in each case, nature of crime, manner in which it was planned and committed, motive for commission of crime, conduct of accused, nature of weapons used and all other attending circumstances are relevant facts which would enter into area of consideration. Further, undue sympathy in sentencing would do more harm to justice dispensations and would undermine the public confidence in the efficacy of law. It is the duty of every court to award proper sentence having regard to nature of offence and manner of its commission. The supreme court further said that courts must not only keep in view the right of victim of crime but also society at large. While considering imposition of appropriate punishment, the impact of crime on the society as a whole and rule of law needs to be balanced. The judicial trend in the country has been towards striking a balance between reform and punishment. The protection of society and stamping out criminal proclivity must be the object of law which can be achieved by imposing appropriate sentence on criminals and wrongdoers. Law, as a tool to maintain order and peace, should effectively meet challenges confronting the society, as society could not long endure and develop under serious threats of crime and disharmony. It is therefore, necessary to avoid undue leniency in imposition of sentence. Thus, the criminal justice jurisprudence adopted in the country is not retributive but reformative and corrective. At the same time, undue harshness should also be avoided keeping in view the reformative approach underlying in our criminal justice system. 17. Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case and also keeping in view criminal jurisprudence in our country which is reformative and corrective and not retributive, this Court considers that no accused person is incapable of being reformed and therefore, all measures should be applied to give them an opportunity of reformation in order to bring them in the social stream. 12. The facts that even the judgment of Mirza Iqbal (Supra) which is the recent judgment. As the accused has been in jail for more than 13 years i.e sufficient for him, hence he may set free if not required in any other offence. 12. The facts that even the judgment of Mirza Iqbal (Supra) which is the recent judgment. As the accused has been in jail for more than 13 years i.e sufficient for him, hence he may set free if not required in any other offence. As far as Section 498A of I.P.C is concerned he has already undergone the punishment and if the fine is not paid the default sentence would also have been over by now which would began after the incarceration awarded by the trial court as over began from that date. As far as Section 304B of I.P.C. is concerned we punish him for 12 years and the default sentence is maintained. If the accused has served out his sentence he be released if not wanted in other offence. 13. By going through the evidence on record it is very clear that the act of the appellant Harish Kumar was not such which cannot be substituted by giving a lessor sentence than life imprisonment. The period of 13 years which he spent is enough punishment in the facts of this case. The minor contradictions will have to be ignored and they cannot for the dent in the prosecution of the husband. Medical evidence is quite clear and corroborates the facts and circumstances. Punishment would be 12 years incarceration, the fine and default sentence are also maintained. 14. Recent judgment of State of M.P. Vs. Jogendra, (2022) 5 SCC 401. Paragraph-20 of the said judgment can be followed, however, instead of seven years period undergone would be more than relevant the facts and circumstances of this case. 15. Accordingly, the appeal is partly allowed with the modification of the sentence as above. Record and proceedings be sent back to the Court below forthwith. 16. A copy of this order be sent to the jail authorities for following this order and doing the needful. 17. This Court is thankful to learned Advocates for ably assisting the Court.