Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2023 DIGILAW 2627 (ALL)

Raj Kumar v. State of U. P.

2023-11-22

RAM MANOHAR NARAYAN MISHRA

body2023
JUDGMENT : 1. Instant Criminal Appeal has been preferred against the judgment and order dated 29.04.2005 passed by Additional Session Judge Court, No.2, Banda in Session Trial No.280 of 2002, under Sections 498A and 304B of I.P.C. and Section 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, arising out of Case Crime No.29 of 2001, Police Station Kalinjar, District Banda, whereby the appellant Raj Kumar and co-accused Ram Asarey were convicted under Section 304B I.P.C. and Section 3/4 of D.P. Act, and sentenced to 7 years imprisonment alongwith fine of Rs.1,000/-for charge under Section 304B of I.P.C.; 2 years imprisonment for charge under Section 498A of I.P.C. and 6 months imprisonment for charge under Section 3/4 of D.P. Act with default stipulation. The co-accused Smt. Sudama was acquitted from all charges in the impugned judgment. 2. Heard Sri Santosh Kumar Tiwari, learned Amicus Curiae appearing for the accused-appellant and Sri Deepak Kapoor, learned A.G.A. for the State-respondent and perused the records. 3. The factual matrix of the case in brief are that informant Nathoo son of Vishal, resident of village Jamu, Police Station Kamasin, District Banda lodged a First Information Report dated 14.06.2001 at Police Station Kalinjar, District Banda, on 04.07.2001 at about 08:15 hours wherein he has stated that he had married his daughter Kusuma on 29.04.1999 according to Hindu Rites and Rituals with Raj Kumar son of Ram Asarey and he gave Rs.20,000/-cash, valuable worth Rs.10,000/-as dowry to groom’s side, his daughter was send off after marriage. The father-in-law of his daughter stated that at the time of Vidai of his daughter, although marriage has been solemnized, he yet got nothing in the dowry; whereupon the informant expressed its inability to pay any more pleading his poverty. After one month of Vidai of his daughter his son Rajesh came to the place of accused person taking back his sister at the place of informant, where father-in-law, mother-in-law, husband and brother-in-law of his daughter demanded Rs.10,000/-in cash, one motorcycle and one radio as additional dowry. His son Rajesh came back to his place alongwith his sister; the daughter of informant stated the informant and other family members that her husband and in-laws were demanding dowry from day month of his arrival at matrimonial place and husband used to abuse her citing ground of receipt of less dowry. His son Rajesh came back to his place alongwith his sister; the daughter of informant stated the informant and other family members that her husband and in-laws were demanding dowry from day month of his arrival at matrimonial place and husband used to abuse her citing ground of receipt of less dowry. The accused persons were coercing and harassing her due to non-fulfillment of the demand of dowry. The daughter of the informant was again sent to her matrimonial home after some time, but demand of dowry persisted there. She was subjected to physical and mental cruelty due to non-fulfillment of demand of dowry, his daughter stated that if the demand of dowry made by husband and inlaws is not conceded, they would kill her. 4. Counsel for the appellant further submitted on 05.06.2021 when informant Nathoo came to the place of accused persons to take back his daughter, he came to know that his daughter Kusuma was done away by giving beating to her by clubs and sticks by her husband, parents-in-law and brother-in-law (Devar). He visited the police station to lodge an FIR, but his report was not recorded. He also met Circle Officer who got inquest and postmortem on the body of the deceased, but his FIR was not recorded, then he approached the Superintendent of Police and on his direction his FIR was lodged. The Circle Officer Amrita Mishra investigated the case recorded the statements of witnesses, collected invitation card of marriage, inquest and postmortem report as well as documents forwarded with postmortem report and records relating to marriage of deceased with accused Raj Kumar. After collecting evidence the Investigating Officer submitted chargesheet against Raj Kumar, husband of the deceased, Ram Asarey, father-in-law and Smt. Sudama, mother-in-law of the deceased with prayer to prosecute the accused for charge under Sections 498A and 304B of I.P.C. and Section 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act. 5. During investigation this fact came into light that on 06.06.2001 the uncle (fufa) of the deceased, accompanied by her father-in-law Nathoo and Chhatrapal Singh visited police station Kalinjar and submitted a death information report regarding death of Kusuma Devi aged about 18 years due to illness. On 06.06.2001 at 5:00 pm this death information report was lodged vide G.D. Entry No.9, at 07:20 hours at Police Station Kalinjar, District Banda. On 06.06.2001 at 5:00 pm this death information report was lodged vide G.D. Entry No.9, at 07:20 hours at Police Station Kalinjar, District Banda. This fact also narrated in the said death information report that deceased was married with Raj Kumar three years ago, who was ill for 15 days and died suddenly, despite much treatment. 6. Chargesheeted accused Ram Asarey was enlarged on bail during trial vide order dated 30.01.2002 passed by court of session and accused Raj Kumar was enlarged on bail vide order dated 04.06.2002 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.11313 of 2002. Accused Smt. Sudama Devi was also enlarged on bail by the court’s order dated 12.06.2002. In postmortem examination report of deceased Kusuma, her age is mentioned as 18 years. Three ante-mortem injuries in the nature of contusion were found on right thigh, right knee and left knee. The cause of death could not be ascertained in postmortem report, and Viscera was preserved for chemical analysis. In postmortem report time of death was found to be four days before the date of postmortem, which was conducted on 07.06.2001 at 3:00 pm, the body was decomposed and was swollen, abdomen was distended, internal organs were decomposed. In viscera examination report Aluminium Phosphide was found by Forensic Science Laboratory, this report was prepared on 10.07.2001. The accused Raj Kumar, Ram Asarey and Smt. Sudama were charged by court of session Banda on commencement of Session Trial for charge under Sections 304 B of I.P.C. and Section 3/4 of D.P. Act. 7. In prosecution evidence, P.W.1 Nathoo informant and father of deceased, P.W.2 Shivkaran (cousin brother of the deceased), PW3 Rajesh brother of deceased were examined as witness of facts and PW4 Dr. G.K. Agarwal was examined as author of postmortem report of the deceased, PW5 constable Lala Bhaiya is author of Chik FR and GD entries of registration of case by GD Entry No.19 at 08:15 hours dated 04.07.2001 vide Crime No. 29/01, PW6 Ms. Amrita Mishra Deputy Superintendent of Police is Investigating Officer and PW7 Ashok Kumar then Naib Tehsildar is author of inquest report. 8. The statement of accused persons were recorded under Section 313 of Cr.P.C., after conclusion of prosecution evidence in which they stated that witnesses have deposed falsely against them due to enmity, the deceased had been indisposed for sometime prior to his death. 8. The statement of accused persons were recorded under Section 313 of Cr.P.C., after conclusion of prosecution evidence in which they stated that witnesses have deposed falsely against them due to enmity, the deceased had been indisposed for sometime prior to his death. The accused were providing treatment to her, but she died due to illness. 9. The accused persons examined DW1 Nathu, DW1 Raj Kumar (Phoopha of the deceased). The learned trial judge after considering the material evidence on record gave a finding of guilt to accused Raj Kumar and Ram Asarey the husband and father-in-law of the deceased and recorded verdict of acquittal of Smt. Sudama Devi the mother-in-law of the deceased, as her complicity in the offence was not proved. The convicted accused persons were sentenced as stated above, all the sentences were directed to run concurrently. 10. Convict Ram Asarey died during the pendency of appeal on 15.02.2023, and this Court vide order dated 15.03.2023 abated connected Criminal Appeal No.2349 or 2005 ( Ram Asarey Vs. State of U.P.) on account of the death of the appellant/convict. 11. Learned Incharge C.J.M. Banda communicated this Court vide letter dated 10.03.2023 that accused Raj Kumar was released from jail custody on 02.08.2010 after undergoing the sentence awarded in judgment dated 29.04.2005 passed in S.T. No.280 of 2002, arising out of Case Crime No.29 of 2001 under Sections 498A and 304B of I.P.C. and Section 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, Police Station Kalinjar, District Banda. 12. Feeling aggrieved by the impugned judgment and order the present appellant Raj Kumar file present Criminal Appeal under Section 374(2) Cr.P.C., wherein learned Session Judge failed to consider the fact that deceased had ended her life by taking poison, no injury as alleged by the PW1-father of the deceased was found on person of the deceased which might be inflicted by club and sticks. The appellant was enlarged on bail during trial. 13. Learned counsel for the appellant placed reliance on grounds taken in memo of appeal, submitted that FIR in the present case was lodged after one month of the unfortunate death of the wife of appellant which gave a ample opportunity of embellishment, concoction and afterthought in prosecution version. The injuries found on persons of the deceased in her postmortem report are of simple nature and on non-vital part of the body. The injuries found on persons of the deceased in her postmortem report are of simple nature and on non-vital part of the body. PW 4 Dr.G.K. Agarwal has stated in his evidence that injuries found on person of the deceased were of superficial in nature and were not weak. The contusion turns into red and thereafter black on lapse of days, the injury No.1 to 3 were not having any colour and no fatal injury was found on the person of the deceased. He failed to state that he is not having information that deceased has consumed Aluminium Phosphide poison, if any smell of Aluminium Phosphide poison would emerged from mouth of the deceased, he would have written this fact in his postmortem examination report. The DW1 Nathoo who is close relative of the father of the deceased has himself given death information report at Police Station concerned on 07.06.2001 and no allegation of rape found against accused persons. In this death information report, the informer has stated that he was informed about death of the deceased by her father-in-law Ram Asarey. 14. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that prosecution failed to establish the guilt of the accused appellant beyond reasonable doubt and he deserves to be acquitted from all charges, conviction and sentence referred by trial court is liable to be set-aside. 15. Learned counsel for the appellant placed reliance upon judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in Ramaiah Vs. State of Karnataka AIR 2014(SC) 3388, in which it is held that generally the order of acquittal is not interfered with because the presumption of innocence, which is otherwise available to the accused under the fundamental principles of criminal jurisprudence that every person shall be presumed to be innocent, unless he is proved guilty by court of law, gets further reinforced and strengthened by his acquittal. It is also trite that if two views are possible on the evidence adduced in the case and the one favourable to the accused has been taken by the trial court, it should not be disturbed. 16. Per contra learned A.G.A. submitted that the prosecution has successfully proved its case against appellant beyond reasonable doubt. Learned trial court has rightly convicted and sentenced the appellant, and co-accused on the basis of evidence adduced during trial. 16. Per contra learned A.G.A. submitted that the prosecution has successfully proved its case against appellant beyond reasonable doubt. Learned trial court has rightly convicted and sentenced the appellant, and co-accused on the basis of evidence adduced during trial. There is no infirmity factual or legal error in the impugned judgment, all the ingredients of Sections 304B, 498A of I.P.C. and Section 3/4 of D.P. Act are fulfilled in the case. The appellant failed to point out any material infirmity in the impugned judgment and order, the sentence awarded by learned trial court is itself in lower side and minimum sentence has been awarded in the case despite seriousness of the offence and proof of the guilt of the accused who is husband of the deceased. 17. From perusal of the impugned judgment and evidence on record, it appears that deceased died on 04.06.2005 at her matrimonial home. The FIR of her death was given at Police Station on 07.06.2001 by one Nathoo son of Chhatrapal Singh who is (Phoopha) uncle of the deceased was accompanied by father-in-law of the deceased at that time. According to P.W1 the informant and father of the deceased he got information of death of his daughter Kushma, when he visited her matrimonial place on 05.06.2001 and found his daughter dead at the place of accused persons. The marriage of the deceased and accused Raj Kumar was solemnized on 29.04.1999, the accused persons made demand of dowry at the time of Vidai ceremony of the deceased to her matrimonial place and this demand persisted when he visited her matrimonial home for first time and it continued till her unfortunate death. The accused persons who demanded Rs.10,000/-cash, motorcycle and radio (transistor ) and the deceased was done away by accused persons who consisted her parents-in-law and husband of the deceased till her death. 18. The version of the informant was corroborated by evidence of PW2 Shivkaran Singh the cousin of the deceased and PW3 Rajesh the real brother of the deceased. A wrong information regarding death of the deceased was given at the behest of father-in-law of the deceased at Police Station on 06.06.2001 through DW1 Nathoo (Phoopha) uncle of the deceased, that she died due to illness on 04.06.2001, whereas in fact her death was proved to be caused due to consumption of Alluminim Phosphide, a poisonous substance. A wrong information regarding death of the deceased was given at the behest of father-in-law of the deceased at Police Station on 06.06.2001 through DW1 Nathoo (Phoopha) uncle of the deceased, that she died due to illness on 04.06.2001, whereas in fact her death was proved to be caused due to consumption of Alluminim Phosphide, a poisonous substance. There is no evidence on record that whether deceased consumed poison herself or she was administered poison. The postmortem examination was conducted after filing of death information report by DW1 Nathoo on 06.06.2001 and in postmortem report dated 07.06.2001 the body was found to be decomposed, swollen and foul smell was emanating therefrom. Skin was peeled off at many place on the body. However, even if death was suicidal, the other ingredients of Section 304B IPC being fulfilled in the case this would be treated as a case of dowry death. 19. So far as exhibits are concerned, PW1 the informant Nathoo son of Vishal has proved his written report addressed to Superintendent of Police, Banda as Exhibit Ka1 on the basis of which Chick FIR was lodged, registered by PW5 as Exhibit Ka3 and GD entries were made regarding registration of case which is exhibited as Ex.Ka4. PW4 Dr. G.K. Agarwal proved postmortem report which is exhibited as Ex.Ka2, PW6 Amrita Mishra, Deputy Superintendent of Police proved site plan of place of occurrence as Ex.Ka5 during her evidence and invitation card of the marriage of the deceased as Ex.Ka1. She has stated that after initial investigation conducted by her the investigation was handed over to Circle Officer Ajay Pratap Singh due to her transfer from the District. Site plan was provided by her in her own signature. The dead body was found in dilapidated house of accused persons adjacent to the residential house of accused. She recorded statements of the informant on 19.07.2001 under Section 161 of Cr.P.C after lodging of the FIR. The Naib Tehsildar who conducted inquest on dead body of the deceased stated in his report that in the opinion of panch witnesses deceased died due illness and for eliciting the real cause of death the postmortem examination was required. On the basis of evidence of PW7 inquest report was exhibited as Ex. The Naib Tehsildar who conducted inquest on dead body of the deceased stated in his report that in the opinion of panch witnesses deceased died due illness and for eliciting the real cause of death the postmortem examination was required. On the basis of evidence of PW7 inquest report was exhibited as Ex. Ka6 and police papers with regard to postmortem of deceased were exhibited as Ex.Ka7 to 11 regarding which she has stated that these papers were prepared by her in writing and signature. DW1 Nathoo son of Ramavtar (Phoopha) uncle of the deceased who stated that Nathoo resident of Jamu is his real brother-in-law who is father of the deceased Kusuma, he mediated the marriage of deceased Kusuma with Raj Kumar, no dowry was settled in the marriage, he is not aware that any demand of dowry was made in the marriage. The deceased used to visit her parental house after marriage. The accused persons never told him regarding any demand of dowry. Prior to death of the deceased he was informed by her father-in-law that she was ill and he visited and found her to be sick and there were difficulty in breathing. Ram Asarey had told him that she is being treated by a doctor in Kalinjar, he did not take Kusuma for treatment. After three to four days he was informed by husband of the deceased that she died. He had visited the place of father of the deceased to inform him regarding her death and there upon her father, mother, Chhatrapal and his boy visited the place of occurrence. In cross-examination he stated that accused persons are his relatives, he is having cordial relationship with the accused persons. The deceased was daughter of his elder brother-in-law Nathu, Ram Asarey is father-in-law of his brother, he is son-in-law of Ram Asarey by relation, this is not true to say that he has taken side of accused persons. 20. From the evidence of DW1, it appears that he is having cordial relationship with the accused persons, despite the fact that deceased was daughter of his brother-in-law, he is a common relative of both sides. However, whatever is deposed by him is based on feedback given by accused side, therefore, learned court below has rightly not given much weight to the evidence of DW1. 21. However, whatever is deposed by him is based on feedback given by accused side, therefore, learned court below has rightly not given much weight to the evidence of DW1. 21. Sections 304B of I.P.C. was added by Act 43 of 1986 w.e.f. 19.11.1986, whereas Section 498A was inserted by Act 46 of 1983 w.e.f 25.12.1983. 22. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Suresh Kumar Vs. State of Haryana 2014 Cr.LJ (551) held that Section 304B I.P.C. does not categorize death as homicidal or suicidal or accidental. This is because death caused by burns can, in a given case, be homicidal or suicidal or accidental. Similarly, death caused by bodily injury can, in a given case, be homicidal or suicidal or accidental. Finally, any death occurring "otherwise than under normal circumstances" can, in a given case, be homicidal or suicidal or accidental. Therefore, if all the other ingredients of Section 304B of the Indian Penal Code are fulfilled, any death (whether homicidal or suicidal or accidental) and whether caused by burns or by bodily injury or occurring otherwise than under normal circumstances shall, as per the legislative mandate, be called a "dowry death" and the woman's husband or his relative "shall be deemed to have caused her death". The Section clearly specifies what constitutes the offence of a “dowry death” and also identifies the single offender or multiple offenders who has or have caused the dowry death. 23. The actual words used in Section 304B of the Indian Penal Code are of importance. This section reads as under: “304-B. Dowry death.-(1) Where the death of a woman is caused by any burns or bodily injury or occurs otherwise than under normal circumstances within seven years of her marriage and it is shown that soon before her death she was subjected to cruelty or harassment by her husband or any relative of her husband for, or in connection with, any demand for dowry, such death shall be called "dowry death", and such husband or relative shall be deemed to have caused her death. Explanation.-For the purpose of this Sub-section, "dowry" shall have the same meaning as in Section 2 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 (28 of 1961). (2) Whoever commits dowry death shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than seven years but which may extend to imprisonment for life.” 24. Explanation.-For the purpose of this Sub-section, "dowry" shall have the same meaning as in Section 2 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 (28 of 1961). (2) Whoever commits dowry death shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than seven years but which may extend to imprisonment for life.” 24. Thus, from perusal of the above statutory provision it is obvious that for recording conviction under Section 304B IPC death of the deceased in unnatural circumstances must be established within seven years of her marriage. In present case this fact is proved by evidence and the witnesses of facts as well as scientific evidence provided in the Viscera examination report submitted by FSL that deceased died due to consumption of a poisonous substance i.e. Alluminium Phosphide. Therefore, it is established by evidence that the deceased died within seven years of her marriage, therefore, this fact is established that she died in unnatural circumstances within seven years of her marriage with the appellant at her matrimonial place and accused persons have taken wrong stand in the statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C that she died due to illness. They even not informed the police just after the death of the deceased at their place and information was given after two days of her death, resulting in decomposition of dead body. The accused persons failed to give any plausible explanation of the death of the deceased at the place as required under Section 106 of Indian Evidence Act, which provides that when any fact is specially within the knowledge of any person, the burden of proving that fact is upon him. The case is based on circumstantial evidence, as there is no eye-witness in the case, but accused persons failed to indicate the real cause of death of the deceased at the time of inception of the case, and real cause of death can only be ascertained after submission of viscera report by Forensic Science Laboratory and till then they were taking false case, in regard to cause of the death of the deceased. Even the accused side has tried to establish the fact that deceased died due to illness through evidence of DW1 as well as in their own statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. recorded by the court after conclusion of prosecution evidence. Even the accused side has tried to establish the fact that deceased died due to illness through evidence of DW1 as well as in their own statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. recorded by the court after conclusion of prosecution evidence. The delay in lodging of FIR is duly explained in FIR itself and same is proved by evidence of PW1. 25. This fact is also proved by the prosecution evidence that deceased was subjected to matrimonial cruelty soon before her death by her husband and inlaws. Therefore, all the ingredients of Section 304B and 498A IPC/Section 4 of D.P. Act regarding demand of dowry subjecting the deceased to matrimonial cruelty by the appellant and his family members and causing her dowry death are proved by prosecution evidence beyond reasonable doubt and I find no factual and legal error in impugned judgment with regard to conviction recorded against the appellant in impugned judgment. 26. Section 113B of Evidence Act is also applicable in the case, which provides that when the question is whether a person has committed the dowry death of a woman and it is shown that soon before her death such woman had been subjected by such person to cruelty or harassment for, or in connection with, any demand for dowry, the court shall presume that such person had caused the dowry death, as defined in Section 304B IPC. 27. The Hon’be Supreme Court in Suresh Kumar Vs. State of Haryana (supra) held that Section 113B of the Evidence Act introduces a reverse onus, which is to say that though it is ordinarily for the prosecution to prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt, but when a reverse onus is introduced, it is for the accused to refute the case of the prosecution and prove his innocence. 28. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Naresh Kumar Vs. State of Haryana 2015(1) SCC797 (SC) held that on proof of the essential ingredients mentioned in Section 113B, if the statutory presumption raised against the accused which shifts the burden on the accused, the accused must give cogent explanation. Failure to give an explanation or giving a false explanation can be taken as an additional circumstance against the accused. 29. State of Haryana 2015(1) SCC797 (SC) held that on proof of the essential ingredients mentioned in Section 113B, if the statutory presumption raised against the accused which shifts the burden on the accused, the accused must give cogent explanation. Failure to give an explanation or giving a false explanation can be taken as an additional circumstance against the accused. 29. In the present case, the case of prosecution is fortified with the aid of statutory presumption provided in Section 113B of Indian Evidence Act and on account of giving false explanation of cause of death of the deceased, the presumption will be raised against the accused appellant regarding causing unnatural death of the deceased. Therefore, I find no factual or legal error in the impugned judgment passed by learned court below on recording conviction of the appellant for charge under Sections 304B and 498A IPC and Section 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961. However, while parting with the case, it would be pertinent to mention that learned Additional Session Judge has wrongly awarded sentence of fine (Rs.1,000) alongwith 7 years imprisonment for charge under Section 304B IPC, as Section 304B IPC provides for only substantive sentence with imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than 7 years, but which may extend to imprisonment for life. There is no provision of awarding fine under Section 304B IPC, similarly the learned trial judge has failed to award the fine alongwith substantive sentence for charge under Section 498A IPC, as the section provides that husband or relative of husband of a woman subjecting her to cruelty shall be punish with imprisonment for a term which may extend to three years and shall also be liable to fine. However, in the present case no fine has been awarded for charge under Section 498A IPC, which is non compliance of statutory provision. In similar fashion composite sentence of 6 months imprisonment has been awarded for charge under Section 3/4 of D.P. Act, whereas both the charges are separate and separate sentences are liable to be forwarded to both the charges. The learned trial court has given a finding in impugned judgment that accused Raj Kumar and Ram Asarey are found guilty of charge of demand of dowry which is punishable under Section 4 of D.P. Act. The learned trial court has given a finding in impugned judgment that accused Raj Kumar and Ram Asarey are found guilty of charge of demand of dowry which is punishable under Section 4 of D.P. Act. There is no finding regarding charge under Section 3 of D.P. Act against appellants, nevertheless they are convicted and sentenced for charge under Section 3/4 of D.P. Act instead of being convicted under Section 4 of D.P. Act only, which is found to be proved by trial judge. Therefore, fine Rs.1,000/-awarded in impugned judgment for charge under Section 304B IPC is quashed, and if same is already deposited/paid, it will be refunded to the accused on his application in this regard. 30. Section 4 of D.P. Act provides that for charge under Section 4, the person who demands any dowry shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than six months, but which may extend to two years and with fine which may extend to Rs.10,000/-provided that the court may, for adequate and special reasons to be mentioned in the judgment, impose a sentence of imprisonment for a term of less than six months. Whereas, in the present case no fine has been awarded by the learned trial judge in contravention of statutory mandate, even if it is presumed that conviction was only recorded for charge under Section 4 of D.P. Act. For charge under Section 3 of D.P. Act, the imprisonment for a term not less than five years and fine which shall not be less than Rs.15,000/-or the amount of the value of such dowry, which ever is more, is provided with proviso that the court may, for adequate and special reasons to be recorded in the judgment, impose a sentence of imprisonment for term of less than five years. 31. Therefore the conviction for charge under Section 3 of Dowry Prohibition Act is set-aside and conviction and sentence for charge under Section 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act is maintained. 32. As there is no State Appeal regarding enhancement of sentence in relation to impugned judgment or any revision preferred by the informant for enhancement of sentence, any addition in sentence awarded in impugned order is not desirable in Criminal Appeal filed against conviction and sentence. 33. The appeal stands partly allowed with above observation. 32. As there is no State Appeal regarding enhancement of sentence in relation to impugned judgment or any revision preferred by the informant for enhancement of sentence, any addition in sentence awarded in impugned order is not desirable in Criminal Appeal filed against conviction and sentence. 33. The appeal stands partly allowed with above observation. However as appellant/accused has already undergone sentence awarded in impugned judgment and order, he need not surrender. 34. Let lower court record be send back immediately for necessary action alongwith certified copy of this judgment.