JUDGMENT : Ajai Tyagi, J. The appeal has been preferred by the appellant-Vinod against the judgment and order dated 15.11.2014, passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Court No. 6, Badaun in Session Trail No. 172 of 2013 (State of U.P. v. Vinod), arising out of Case Crime No. 547 of 2012, under Sections 498-A, 304B Indian Penal Code, 1860 (in short 'I.P.C.') and Section 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, Police Station-Kadarchowk, District Badaun whereby the appellant is convicted and sentenced for the offence under Section 304-B I.P.C. for life imprisonment, under Section 498-A I.P.C. for three years rigorous imprisonment with a fine of Rs.3,000/- and in default of payment of fine, further imprisonment for three months. Accused-appellant is also convicted and sentenced for the offence Section 4 of D.P. Act for one year rigorous imprisonment with a fine of Rs.1,000/- and in default of payment of fine, further imprisonment for one month. 2. Brief facts of the case giving rise to this appeal are that a written report was submitted by complainant Natthu Lal (father of the deceased) at police station Kadarchowk, District Badaun with the averments that marriage of his daughter Seema was solemnized with accused-Vinod before one and half year. He had given dowry as per his capacity. After marriage accused-Vinod and his family members demanding motorcycle, gold chain and ring as additional dowry and used to compel his daughter to bring the aforesaid articles. It is further averred that on 23.10.2012, appellant-Vinod and his family members had murdered his daughter, who is having injury marks on her neck and feet. It is also stated in written report that accused-Vinod himself informed him on phone that they have killed his daughter. 3. On the basis of above written report, a case crime No. 547 of 2012 was registered at Police Station Kadarchowk, under Sections 498-A, 304-B I.P.C. and Section 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act. Investigation was taken up by Circle Office, who visited the spot, prepared the site plan and recorded the statement of witnesses. Inquest report was prepared and post-mortem of the dead body was conduced and its report was also prepared by doctor. After completion of investigation, I.O. submitted the charge-sheet against accused-Vinod only, who is the husband of the deceased. Other accused named in the First Information Report were not charge-sheeted. Inquest report was prepared and post-mortem of the dead body was conduced and its report was also prepared by doctor. After completion of investigation, I.O. submitted the charge-sheet against accused-Vinod only, who is the husband of the deceased. Other accused named in the First Information Report were not charge-sheeted. Case being exclusively triable by the Court of session was committed to the Court of session for trial, hence, trial taken placed against accused-Vinod. 4. Learned Sessions Court framed the charges against accused-Vinod under Section 3 r/w 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, under Section 498-A and 304-B I.P.C. Charges were read over to the accused, who denied the charges and claimed to be tried. 5. To bring home the charges, the prosecution examined following witnesses : 1. Natthu Lal P.W.-1 2. Satendra Pal P.W.-2 3. Mahendra Kumar Singh P.W.-3 4. Dr. S.K. Saxena P.W.-4 5. Jai Kesh P.W.-5 6. In support of oral evidence, prosecution submitted following documentary evidence, which was proved by leading oral evidence : 1. FIR Ex.ka-8 2. Written report Ex.ka-1 3. Post-mortem report Ex.ka-7 4. Panchayatnama Ex.ka-2 5. Charge-sheet Mool Ex.ka-11 6. Site plan with index Ex.ka-10 7. After completion of prosecution evidence, the statement of accused was recorded under Section 313 of Criminal Procedure Code (Cr.P.C.), in which he denied his involvement in the crime and told that false evidence was led against him. The accused examined D.W-1 Ram Nath and D.W.-2 Satyapal in defence. 8. Heard Ms. Gunjan Sharma, learned Advocate holding brief of Mr. Pradeep Kumar, counsel for the appellant and Mr. N.K. Srivastava, learned counsel for the State. Record has been perused. 9. Perusal of record shows that occurrence of this case had taken place on 23.10.2012. As per the prosecution story, accused-appellant and his family members committed the offence but they were not charge-sheeted because no sufficient evidence was found against them during the course of investigation. 10. Leaned counsel for the appellant has submitted that as per the F.I.R., family members of the appellant were also involved in the offence but no evidence was found against them, which goes to show that entire F.I.R. is fabricated and false averments were made by the complainant to rope in all the family members of the appellant. Such type of F.I.R. is highly suspicious and cannot be believed. Such type of F.I.R. is highly suspicious and cannot be believed. It is further submitted that if the offence was committed by appellant, there could be no reason that he himself informed the father of the deceased as is evident from the version of F.I.R. 11. It is next submitted by learned counsel for the appellant that prosecution has examined P.W.-1, Natthu Lal, father of the deceased and P.W.-2 Satendra Pal, brother of the deceased, as a witnesses of fact but their testimony has material contradictions, which go to the root of the case. Demand of additional dowry is not proved, even the F.I.R. does not mention any story of torture on the part of the appellant. 12. With regard to the medical evidence, learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that as per the post-mortem report, there is only ligature mark of injury was found on the neck of the deceased and doctor has also opined that deceased has committed suicide. No other mark of injury was found on the body of the deceased, hence, it is proved that deceased was not tortured or beaten up etc. which falsify the prosecution story. 13. After the aforesaid arguments, learned counsel for the appellant submits that he wanted to press the appeal only on the ground of quantum of sentence and it is also submitted that learned trial Court has awarded very severe punishment of life imprisonment while there was no torture either mental or physical on the part of the accused-appellant is proved. 14. Learned A.G.A. for the State has vehemently objected to the submissions of learned counsel for the accused-appellant and submitted that death of deceased had taken place within 7 years of her marriage. P.W.-1 and P.W.-3 have proved the demand of additional dowry. It is also submitted that even the death by suicide is covered within the category of dowry death. Learned trial Court has rightly convicted and sentenced the accused-appellant. 15. During the course of arguments, learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that he wants to press this appeal only on the ground of quantum of compensation and no merits. In this regard, we have to analyse the theory of punishment prevailing in India. 16. In Mohd. Learned trial Court has rightly convicted and sentenced the accused-appellant. 15. During the course of arguments, learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that he wants to press this appeal only on the ground of quantum of compensation and no merits. In this regard, we have to analyse the theory of punishment prevailing in India. 16. In Mohd. Giasuddin v. State of A.P., AIR 1977 SC 1926 , explaining rehabilitary and 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.'' 17. 'Proper Sentence' was explained in Deo Narain Mandal v. 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. 18. 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. 18. In Ravada Sasikala v. State of A.P., AIR 2017 SC 1166 , the Supreme Court referred the judgments in Jameel v. State of U.P., (2010) 12 SCC 532 , Guru Basavraj v. State of Karnatak, (2012) 8 SCC 734 , Sumer Singh v. Surajbhan Singh, (2014) 7 SCC 323 , State of Punjab v. Bawa Singh, (2015) 3 SCC 441 and Raj Bala v. 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. 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. 19. 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. 20. Since the learned counsel for the appellant has not pressed the appeal on its merit, however, after perusal of entire evidence on record and judgment of the trial Court, we consider that the appeal is devoid of merit and is liable to be dismissed. Hence, the conviction of the appellant is upheld. 21. As discussed above, 'reformative theory of punishment' is to be adopted and for that reason, it is necessary to impose punishment keeping in view the 'doctrine of proportionality'. It appears from perusal of impugned judgment that sentence awarded by learned trial Court for life term is very harsh keeping in view the entirety of facts and circumstances of the case and gravity of offence. Hon'ble Apex Court, as discussed above, has held that undue harshness should be avoided taking into account the reformative approach underlying in criminal justice system. 22. Perusal of record goes to show that there is no doubt that deceased had committed suicide. Ante-mortem injury in post-mortem report show that there was only ligature mark around the neck above the thyroid cartilage obliquely. It was sized about 24 cm X 1 cm. Dr. S.K. Saxena, P.W.-4 has also opined that in the opinion of panel of doctors cause of death was hanging. Ante-mortem injury in post-mortem report show that there was only ligature mark around the neck above the thyroid cartilage obliquely. It was sized about 24 cm X 1 cm. Dr. S.K. Saxena, P.W.-4 has also opined that in the opinion of panel of doctors cause of death was hanging. It is also pertinent to note that there were no injury marks on the body of the deceased, hence, undoubtedly it is a case of hanging and we are of the considered opinion that learned trial Court has awarded very harsh and severe punishment, which is life imprisonment. 23. Keeping overall facts and circumstances of this case, in our opinion, ends of justice would be met if the sentence is reduced to the period of 10 years under Section 304-B I.P.C. Sentence under Section 498-A I.P.C. and Section 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act has already been served. Fine imposed under Section 498-A I.P.C. and Section 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act is maintained and sentence in default of fine is also maintained. 24. Accordingly, the appeal is partly allowed, as modified above. 25. Record be sent to trial Court immediately.