Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2024 DIGILAW 1284 (ALL)

Ankur Gupta v. State of U. P.

2024-05-13

ASHWANI KUMAR MISHRA, MOHD.AZHAR HUSAIN IDRISI

body2024
JUDGMENT : ASHWANI KUMAR MISHRA, J. 1. These two appeals are directed against the judgment and order of conviction and sentence dated 09.03.2022, passed by Additional District and Sessions Judge, Court No. 16, Aligarh in Sessions Trial No. 297 of 2017 (State Vs. Ankur Gupta and others) arising out of Case Crime No. 1064 of 2016, Police Station Quarsi, District Aligarh, whereby the accused appellants Ankur Gupta (husband of deceased) and Smt. Vimlesh (mother-in-law of deceased) have been convicted under Section 304B IPC and sentenced to life imprisonment; under Section 498A IPC for two years rigorous imprisonment with fine of Rs.10,000/-each and in default of payment of fine they are to further undergo six months additional imprisonment and; under Section 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act for one year rigorous imprisonment with fine of Rs.5,000/-each and in default thereof they are to further undergo three months additional imprisonment. All sentences are to run concurrently. 2. The informant Umesh Chandra (PW-1), who is the father of deceased, has made a written report (Ex.Ka.1), scribed by Pradeep Nath Sharma (not produced in trial), to the Station House Officer, Police Station Quarsi, informing that he is resident of District Budaun and had married his daughter Shreya Varshaney (deceased) to accused appellant Ankur Gupta with Hindu customs and traditions on 06.03.2013 and had spent nearly Rs.10 lac for the purposes. Ever since the marriage in-laws of his daughter were demanding additional dowry. On several occasions he met the demands and persuaded his daughter to stay with her in-laws. On 26-27.10.2016 the deceased informed informant on phone that accused Ankur requires Rs.5 lac for establishing factory. If such amount is not given before Deepawali, her mother-in-law, husband and sister-in-law (Nanad) would kill her for dowry. The incident occurred on 29.10.2018 in the morning hours. Informant’s brother-in-law Girish intimated him that deceased has been strangulated to death by her mother-in-law Vimlesh, husband Ankur and sister-in-law Swati @ Sona and thereafter set her ablaze. Request was made for lodging First Information Report and taking appropriate legal action. 3. Based upon the aforesaid written report (Ex.Ka-1) the First Information Report (Ex.Ka.11) was lodged on 29.10.2016 at 07.20 pm as Case Crime No. 1064 of 2016 under Sections 498-A, 304-B, 201 IPC and 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act against three accused Ankur Gupta (husband), Smt. Vimlesh (mother-in-law) and Swati @ Sona (sister-in-law). Investigation proceeded. 3. Based upon the aforesaid written report (Ex.Ka-1) the First Information Report (Ex.Ka.11) was lodged on 29.10.2016 at 07.20 pm as Case Crime No. 1064 of 2016 under Sections 498-A, 304-B, 201 IPC and 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act against three accused Ankur Gupta (husband), Smt. Vimlesh (mother-in-law) and Swati @ Sona (sister-in-law). Investigation proceeded. The Investigating Officer recovered a ring having thread (kalawa) and a blue cane on which Artele was mentioned and there was smell of kerosene. This recovery has been exhibited as Ex.Ka.4. The inquest (Ex.Ka.5) was conducted and the inquest witnesses found that the deceased died due to burn injuries and her tongue had protruded. The death apparently occurred due to burn injuries but in the opinion of inquest witnesses postmortem was required to be conducted to ascertain the cause of death. The dead body was accordingly sealed and sent for postmortem. The postmortem (Ex.Ka.7) was conducted on 30.10.2016 at 12.15 and the Autopsy Surgeon noted following conditions of the body: “Age: 31 years General Examination: Average body built, pugilistic attitude present, both eyes closed, tongue protruded. External Examination/Antemortem Injuries: Superficial to deep thermal burn injury present all over the body except both foot sole and some part of scalp. Singing of hairs (scalp) present. Line of redness present at places. Smell of kerosene oil present. About 95& thermal burn injury. Exudate present at places. Time of death: Expired about one day back. Cause of death: Due to asphyxia with hypovolumic shock as a result of antemortem thermal burn injury.” 4. The Investigating Officer, after recording the statement of witnesses under Section 161 Cr.P.C. and collecting other evidence etc., concluded the investigation and submitted a chargesheet (Ex.Ka.10) on 15.12.2016 against the accused Ankur Gupta, Smt. Vimlesh and Swati @ Sona. Cognizance was taken on the chargesheet and the case was committed to the court of sessions where it got registered as Sessions Trial No. 297 of 2017. Charges were framed against all named accused under Sections 498A, 304B IPC and 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act. Alternate charge was also framed under Section 302 IPC in addition to aforesaid sections. The accused denied the charges and demanded trial. 5. The prosecution in addition to the documentary evidence, noticed above, has produced the first informant as PW-1. Charges were framed against all named accused under Sections 498A, 304B IPC and 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act. Alternate charge was also framed under Section 302 IPC in addition to aforesaid sections. The accused denied the charges and demanded trial. 5. The prosecution in addition to the documentary evidence, noticed above, has produced the first informant as PW-1. In his examination-in-chief, he has stated that marriage of deceased daughter with accused Ankar was solemnized on 06.02.2013 and he had spent Rs.10 lac in the marriage. From the very initial days the deceased was being harassed for dowry by her in-laws. He had intervened and got the issues resolved. It is also stated that demand of Rs.5 lac was being raised as dowry and on 26.10.2016 the deceased made a phone call stating that if amount of Rs.5 lac is not paid, then her in-laws would kill her. It was about quarter to 12 in the afternoon on 29.10.2016 that informant’s brother-in-law Girish Gupta informed him that the mother-in-law, sister-in-law and husband have killed the deceased by burning her. PW-1 has proved the written report. In the cross-examination, PW-1 has stated that he was saddened and perplexed by the death of daughter and does not know if the date of marriage was mentioned as 06.03.2013 in the FIR. He has supported the allegation of demand of dowry from the very beginning. He has, however, admitted that though various incident kept happening regarding demand of dowry from 2013 onwards but he never lodged any report with the police. He has denied the suggestion that in-laws kept his daughter well and a false report has been lodged. In his further cross-examination, PW-1 has stated that telephone call for demand of dowry of Rs.5 lac was received by his wife on 26-27.10.2016 and not by him. He has denied the suggestion that his daughter was not keeping well. Deceased was treated at Aligarh and Bareilly as she was not able to conceive. The incident occurred on the day of Chhoti Diwali. He has denied the suggestion that the family was busy celebrating Diwali when the incident occurred. When he arrived at the house of her deceased daughter nobody from the family was present. He had not seen as to whether accused Ankur and his mother was present at the time of inquest. The incident occurred on the day of Chhoti Diwali. He has denied the suggestion that the family was busy celebrating Diwali when the incident occurred. When he arrived at the house of her deceased daughter nobody from the family was present. He had not seen as to whether accused Ankur and his mother was present at the time of inquest. PW-1 has admitted that father of accused Ankur died long back and two brother of accused Ankur also died by drowning in the Ganges. It is also stated that the deceased visited her maternal house about 5-6 months ago and stayed there for about one month. He further denied the suggestion that his daughter was undergoing depression and that she had beaten her own mother while she was at her maternal house. He has also stated that accused Ankur was working in a factory at R. K. Puram. He has denied the suggestion that his daughter has committed suicide because she has beaten her mother or she was under depression. He has also denied the suggestion that on 29.10.2016 before death of deceased, at about 2-2½ pm she called her mother and informed her that she is in trouble and would not meet her today. 6. PW-2 (Uma Devi) is the mother of deceased and has fully supported the prosecution case with regard to torture being extended to the deceased. She has stated that there was no independent witness with regard to dowry of Rs.10 lac. The deceased called her on 26-27 saying that her in-laws are asking for Rs.5 lac. In the cross-examination, PW-2 has stated that sister-in-law of deceased had beaten her with slippers and thrown her out of house. She had, however, not lodged police report about the incident. She did not remember the mobile number of her daughter from which she called her. She had denied the suggestion that her daughter was under depression and she had beaten her. She has also denied the suggestion that on the date of incident her daughter called her at 02.16 in the afternoon from her mobile no. 9319726234. She has admitted that mother-in-law of the deceased is widow, who lost her two sons by drowning in river Ganga and accused Ankur was the only son alive in the family. Sister-in-law of the deceased, Swati, is married and has two children and is living elsewhere. 7. 9319726234. She has admitted that mother-in-law of the deceased is widow, who lost her two sons by drowning in river Ganga and accused Ankur was the only son alive in the family. Sister-in-law of the deceased, Swati, is married and has two children and is living elsewhere. 7. PW-3 (Girish Gupta) happens to be the maternal uncle of the deceased. He claims that information regarding the incident was received from medical representative Dushyant, who informed him that outside the house of deceased a crowd had gathered. When he entered the house he found that the deceased was lying dead. He claims that the deceased was strangulated and later burnt and her tongue protruded. He has supported the prosecution case about demand of dowry. 8. PW-4 (Harendra Singh) is the Sub Inspector, who has proved the recovery of ring having thread (Kalawa) vide Ex.Ka.4. He has also proved the arrest of accused persons on 30.10.2016. He has stated that he received information of incident at police chowki on wireless. He has also proved the inquest. 9. PW-5 (Dr. Anupam Bhaskar) is the Autopsy Surgeon, who has proved the postmortem report. He has stated that in the trachea soot particles were available. Both lungs were congested. Superficial deep thermal burn injuries were present on the entire body except sole and some portion of head. Smell of kerosene was also coming. The deceased was 95% burnt. Cause of death was asphyxia with hypovolumic shock as a result of antemortem thermal burn injury. 10. PW-6 (Rajeev Kumar) is the Investigating Officer, who has stated that 29.10.2016 at about 03.12 pm information was received from mobile no. 8650521855 of Dinesh that the deceased has committed suicide. It is on the basis of this information that the police came on spot. Avinash and Mahesh were immediate neighbours. He had not recorded statement of neighbours or those who were present. He was informed by mother of the deceased that her daughter was treated at Bareilly and Aligarh between 2013 to 2016. PW-6 has admitted that he has not recorded the statement of any independent witness. He has also came to know that sister-in-law of the deceased has kids and she lives separately with her husband at Gular Road. 11. PW-7 (Manvendra Singh) is the Constable, who has proved the police papers and has denied the suggestion that FIR is ante-timed. 12. PW-6 has admitted that he has not recorded the statement of any independent witness. He has also came to know that sister-in-law of the deceased has kids and she lives separately with her husband at Gular Road. 11. PW-7 (Manvendra Singh) is the Constable, who has proved the police papers and has denied the suggestion that FIR is ante-timed. 12. Based upon the evidence led during trial by the prosecution, statement of accused persons under Section 313 Cr.P.C. has been recorded. Accused Swati has stated that she is innocent and lives separately and that the deceased was suffering from mental depression. Accused mother-in-law of deceased has also stated that she is innocent and the deceased was suffering from depression on account of which she committed suicide. Similar stand is taken by the accused Ankur, who has stated that the deceased had committed suicide in which he has no role to play and he is innocent. 13. The defence has produced Atul Kumar Varshaney as DW-1. He has stated that he has business of locks in which 20 persons are working. Accused Ankur Gupta was working in his factory and his name finds place in the Employees State Insurance list. He has stated that accused Ankur came to the factory at 09.00 in the morning and left at 02.30 pm when he got a call from his mother about his wife having got burnt. He knew the accused Ankur for the last 5-6 years as he is distantly related to his wife. The accused was working as supervisor. Attendance register for the date of incident, however, has not been produced by him. 14. DW-2 (Mahesh Chandra) is the neighbour of accused persons, who has stated that he has his shop in front of house of deceased. He claims that he is living in the same area for the last twenty years and knows accused persons since then. It was Chhoti Diwali on the date of incident that the mother-in-law of deceased rushed out of the house and told that smoke is coming out of the room which was locked from inside. He claims to have rushed to the place and door was broke open from outside. He has denied the suggestion that the shop was closed on the day of incident and he was not present. 15. He claims to have rushed to the place and door was broke open from outside. He has denied the suggestion that the shop was closed on the day of incident and he was not present. 15. DW-3 (Hari Prakash) is also neighbour of accused persons, who has stated that he has business of handle plate and the house of accused is in front of his house and that he knows the accused for last 7-8 years. He claims that the deceased has committed suicide. 16. DW-4 (Dr. Mohd. Riyad) is the Psychiatrist in City Hospital, Civil Lines, Aligarh, who has stated that the deceased was suffering from depression and he has examined the deceased on 17.05.2016. He has certified that mentally depressed patient can commit suicide. In the cross-examination he has disclosed that he is MD in Psychiatrist and has not produced original records. He had given his statement on the basis of copy of prescription. 17. It is on the basis of above evidence led during trial by the prosecution and upon consideration of the explanation furnished by the accused appellants under section 313 Cr.P.C. and defence version that the court below has come to the conclusion that the prosecution has established its case beyond reasonable doubt against the accused appellants Ankur Gupta (husband) and Smt. Vimlesh (mother-in-law) and found them to be guilty of committing the offence. Ultimately, the court below has convicted and sentenced the accused appellants vide impugned judgment and order and acquitted the accused Swati, sister-in-law of the deceased. Thus aggrieved, the accused appellants are before this Court in the present appeals. 18. Learned counsel for the appellants states that this is a case of suicide by the deceased as she had not been able to bear a child. It is submitted that the deceased was undergoing depression and treated by the doctors at Aligarh and Bareilly Learned counsel, therefore, submits that in the depressed mental state the deceased committed suicide by pouring kerosene on herself and, therefore, the accused appellants cannot be convicted for dowry death. It is also contended that marriage was solemnized three years back but not a single complaint of demand of dowry was made, nor any independent witness has been produced to prove the demand of dowry. It is further argued that merely on the strength of suspicion the accused appellants have been convicted and sentenced by the court below. It is also contended that marriage was solemnized three years back but not a single complaint of demand of dowry was made, nor any independent witness has been produced to prove the demand of dowry. It is further argued that merely on the strength of suspicion the accused appellants have been convicted and sentenced by the court below. It is also urged that the accused appellant Smt. Vimlesh is a widow elderly lady, aged about 71 years, and has already lost her two sons who drowned in the river Ganga. It is further argued that the accused appellant Ankur was not present at the place of occurrence when the deceased committed suicide and returned only after coming to know of incident, and that the trial court has imposed maximum punishment upon the accused appellants without disclosing reasons for it while the minimum punishment provided under Section 304-B IPC is seven years. Submission is that the accused appellant Ankur Gupta has already undergone incarceration of 8 year 1 month 14 days with remission as on 09.05.2024, while the appellant Smt. Vimlesh has served sentence incarceration of 3 year 1 month 12 days as on 09.05.2024. It is moreover submitted that the trial court has not correctly appreciated the evidence on record and, therefore, the impugned judgment and order of conviction and sentence is liable to be set aside. 19. Learned AGA, on the other hand, submits that this is a case of dowry death, inasmuch as ingredients of dowry death are clearly made out in the facts of the case. Learned A.G.A. has supported the reasoning of trial court that had it been a case of suicide the deceased would have attempted to save herself and the articles kept in the room like bed, refrigerator etc. would have been damaged but nothing happened of this kind, which clearly shows that the deceased was burnt and the accused persons did not let her save herself. It is, therefore, submitted that judgment and order of conviction and sentence requires no interference. 20. We have heard Shri Somit Shukla, learned counsel for the appellants and learned A.G.A. for the State and have perused the material on record, including the records of court below. 21. In the facts of the case, evidence on record shows that the marriage of the deceased was solemnized with accused appellant Ankur Gupta on 06.02.2013 and she died on 29.10.2016. 21. In the facts of the case, evidence on record shows that the marriage of the deceased was solemnized with accused appellant Ankur Gupta on 06.02.2013 and she died on 29.10.2016. It is, therefore, clear that the deceased has died within seven years of marriage. The first condition for an offence under Section 304B IPC is clearly made out. 22. Coming to the second condition with regard to demand of dowry the testimony of PW-1 and PW-2, who are the parents of deceased, is specific on that count. PW-1 has stated that they spent Rs.10 lac at the time of marriage towards dowry and that there was a continuous demand of dowry from the side of accused persons. It is alleged that in the year 2013 itself, as also in the year 2014, 2015 and 2016 there was consistent demand of dowry. Although it is alleged by the counsel for the accused appellants that there was no report lodged with the police or the specific dates for demand of dowry are not mentioned but this would not be decisive in our opinion because parents of a bride firstly try to make efforts for the marriage to succeed and, therefore, such instance of demand of dowry are not reported at the first instance. The mere fact that complaint has not been made to the police ipso facto cannot be determinative of fact as to whether there has been demand of dowry or not. It may well be a factor to be considered. In the facts of the present case, PW-1 has specifically stated that she got a call from the deceased on 26/27.10.2016 with regard to demand of dowry of Rs.5 lac. This money was needed for establishing factory for accused Ankur. The evidence in that regard is consistent on part of the prosecution witnesses. In such circumstances, upon evaluation of evidence on record, we find that the trial court has correctly returned findings with regard to dowry given in the marriage and that the deceased was being harassed for dowry. This demand continued even soon before the death of the deceased. The second condition for an offence to be proved under Section 304B is also met. 23. Coming to the next aspect of death of the deceased, it is apparent that she died on account of burn injuries. The death is, therefore, unnatural. This demand continued even soon before the death of the deceased. The second condition for an offence to be proved under Section 304B is also met. 23. Coming to the next aspect of death of the deceased, it is apparent that she died on account of burn injuries. The death is, therefore, unnatural. So far as the prosecution case that the deceased was strangulated and then burnt is concerned, we find that the allegation is based entirely upon suspicion, inasmuch as the only reason for making such allegation is that the tongue of deceased had protruded. We have examined the medical evidence on record and find that there is no evidence to suggest that the deceased has been strangulated prior to death. The Autopsy Surgeon has given his opinion as per which the tongue of deceased could have protruded on account of lack of oxygen since room itself was filled with smoke. The postmortem report shows no other sign of injury on the body of deceased. The only injuries found on the body of deceased is with regard to burn injuries. The prosecution, therefore, has not been able to prove the allegation that the deceased was strangulated or physically tortured before death occurred on account of burn injuries. 24. We have examined the testimony of defence and prosecution witnesses from a perusal whereof it is apparent that the deceased had got married in the year 2013 but she could not bear a child. This fact is admitted to PW-2, who is the mother of deceased. She has admitted that her daughter was taken to different hospital for treatment at Aligarh and Bareilly. The specific case of the defence is that the deceased was undergoing depression on account of such fact. DW-4, who is the psychiatrist, has certified that the deceased was examined by him as she was suffering from depression. It has also come in evidence of defence witnesses that the mother-in-law of deceased firstly reported that smoke was coming out of the room whereafter DW-1, who is the immediate neighbour, came to the house and broke open the door. The evidence on record thus suggest that it is in the afternoon hours that the deceased committed suicide. It has also come in evidence of defence witnesses that the mother-in-law of deceased firstly reported that smoke was coming out of the room whereafter DW-1, who is the immediate neighbour, came to the house and broke open the door. The evidence on record thus suggest that it is in the afternoon hours that the deceased committed suicide. Apart from the depression as the deceased was not able to bear a child, the demand of dowry and harassment by her in-laws apparently was the cause for her to have committed suicide. Existence of soot particles in trachea of deceased also shows that the deceased had committed suicide. 25. Upon cumulative analysis of evidence on record, we are of the view that this was a case of suicide committed by the deceased within 7 years of marriage on account of harassment meted out to her due to demand of dowry as also her inability to bear a child. So far as the conviction of accused appellant Ankur Gupta is concerned, it is admitted that he is the husband of deceased and is responsible for safety and security of his wife but he has failed to perform his responsibilities as husband and, therefore, his conviction under Sections 498A, 304-B IPC & 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act is sustained. 26. So far as the role of accused appellant Smt. Vimlesh (mother-in-law) in demanding dowry is concerned, the allegation is not specific as against her and the allegations at best appear to be omnibus and vague. It is evident that she has firstly reported that smoke was coming out of the room of deceased and on her screams DW-1 and others came to the house and broke open the door. As we have already observed that the deceased had committed suicide and looking to the conduct of the accused mother-in-law, we are of the view that the accused mother-in-law cannot be convicted for offence under Sections 498A, 304B IPC and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, in the absence of any specific allegation against her with regard to demand of dowry. The conviction of accused Smt. Vimlesh under Sections 498A, 304B IPC and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act is, therefore, reversed. 27. Coming to the question of sentence, we find that the trial court has awarded life sentence to the accused appellant Ankur Gupta under Section 304-B IPC. The conviction of accused Smt. Vimlesh under Sections 498A, 304B IPC and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act is, therefore, reversed. 27. Coming to the question of sentence, we find that the trial court has awarded life sentence to the accused appellant Ankur Gupta under Section 304-B IPC. Punishment under Section 304-B IPC varies from 7 years to life. When the court proceeds to award maximum permissible sentence for an offence, it is the cardinal principle of law that reasons have to be given for awarding such maximum punishment. We do not find any such reasons to have been disclosed by the trial court. We otherwise find that there are no circumstances, which may justify awarding of extreme punishment to the accused appellant Ankur Gupta in the facts of the present case. Considering the evidence in its entirety, we are of the view that punishment of life under Section 304-B IPC to the accused appellant Ankur Gupta is not warranted, and ends of justice would be met if the sentence already undergone by the accused appellant Ankur Gupta is awarded to him under Section 304-B IPC. To that extent, we modify the impugned judgment and order of the court below. 28. In Hem Chand Vs. State of Haryana, (1994) 6 SCC 727 , the Supreme Court has observed that though punishment under Section 304-B IPC varies from 7 years to life but award of extreme punishment should not be as a matter of course and must be awarded in rare cases. In Para 7 and 8, the Supreme Court observed as under: “7. Now coming to the question of sentence, it can be seen that Section 304-B IPC lays down that: “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.” The point for consideration is whether the extreme punishment of imprisonment for life is warranted in the instant case. A reading of Section 304-B IPC would show that when a question arises whether a person has committed the offence of dowry death of a woman what all that is necessary is it should be shown that soon before her unnatural death, which took place within seven years of the marriage, the deceased had been subjected, by such person, to cruelty or harassment for or in connection with demand for dowry. If that is shown then the court shall presume that such a person has caused the dowry death. It can therefore be seen that irrespective of the fact whether such person is directly responsible for the death of the deceased or not by virtue of the presumption, he is deemed to have committed the dowry death if there were such cruelty or harassment and that if the unnatural death has occurred within seven years from the date of marriage. Likewise there is a presumption under Section 113-B of the Evidence Act as to the dowry death. It lays down that the court shall presume that the person who has subjected the deceased wife to cruelty before her death caused the dowry death if it is shown that before her death, such woman had been subjected, by the accused, to cruelty or harassment in connection with any demand for dowry. Practically this is the presumption that has been incorporated in Section 304-B IPC also. It can therefore be seen that irrespective of the fact whether the accused has any direct connection with the death or not, he shall be presumed to have committed the dowry death provided the other requirements mentioned above are satisfied. In the instant case no doubt the prosecution has proved that the deceased died an unnatural death namely due to strangulation, but there is no direct evidence connecting the accused. It is also important to note in this context that there is no charge under Section 302 IPC. The trial court also noted that there were two sets of medical evidence on the file in respect of the death of the deceased. Dr Usha Rani PW-6 and Dr Indu Lalit PW-7 gave one opinion. According to them no injury was found on the dead body and that the same was highly decomposed. On the other hand, Dr Dalbir Singh PW-13 who also examined the dead body and gave his opinion, deposed that he noticed some injuries at the time of re-post-mortem examination. Therefore at the most it can be said that the prosecution proved that it was an unnatural death in which case also Section 304-B IPC would be attracted. But this aspect has certainly to be taken into consideration in balancing the sentence to be awarded to the accused. Therefore at the most it can be said that the prosecution proved that it was an unnatural death in which case also Section 304-B IPC would be attracted. But this aspect has certainly to be taken into consideration in balancing the sentence to be awarded to the accused. As a matter of fact, the trial court only found that the death was unnatural and the aspect of cruelty has been established and therefore the offences punishable under Sections 304-B and 201 IPC have been established. The High Court in a very short judgment concluded that it was fully proved that the death of the deceased in her matrimonial home was a dowry death otherwise than in normal circumstances as a result of cruelty meted out to her and therefore an offence under Section 304-B IPC was made out. Coming to the sentence the High Court pointed out that the accused-appellant was a police employee and instead of checking the crime, he himself indulged therein and precipitated in it and that bride-killing cases are on the increase and therefore a serious view has to be taken. As mentioned above, Section 304-B IPC only raises presumption and lays down that minimum sentence should be seven years but it may extend to imprisonment for life. Therefore awarding extreme punishment of imprisonment for life should be in rare cases and not in every case. 8. Hence, we are of the view that a sentence of 10 years' RI would meet the ends of justice. We, accordingly while confirming the conviction of the appellant under Section 304-B IPC, reduce the sentence of imprisonment for life to 10 years' RI. The other conviction and sentence passed against the appellant are, however, confirmed. In the result, the appeal is dismissed subject to the above modification of sentence.” 29. In Kashmira Devi Vs. State of Uttarakhand, AIR 2020 SC 652 , the principle laid down in Hem Chand (supra) has been reiterated and the Court observed as under in Para 24: “24. Having arrived at the above conclusion the quantum of sentence requires consideration. The High Court has awarded life imprisonment to the appellant on being convicted under Section 304-B IPC. The minimum sentence provided is seven years but it may extend to imprisonment for life. Having arrived at the above conclusion the quantum of sentence requires consideration. The High Court has awarded life imprisonment to the appellant on being convicted under Section 304-B IPC. The minimum sentence provided is seven years but it may extend to imprisonment for life. In fact, this Court in Hem Chand v. State of Haryana, (1994) 6 SCC 727 : 1995 SCC (Cri) 36, has held that while imposing the sentence, awarding extreme punishment of imprisonment for life under Section 304-B IPC should be in rare cases and not in every case. Though the mitigating factor noticed in the said case was different, in the instant case keeping in view the age of the appellant and also the contribution that would be required by her to the family, while husband is also aged and further taking into consideration all other circumstances, the sentence as awarded by the High Court to the appellant herein is liable to be modified.” 30. In light of the observation made in Para 24 (reproduced above), the Court modified the sentence to a period of 7 years. Para 25 of the judgment in Kashmira Devi (supra) is, thus, reproduced hereinafter: “25. In the result, the following: Order 25.1. The conviction of the appellant recorded by the High Court under Section 304-B IPC and Section 498-A IPC through its judgment dated 29-6-2017 [State v. Govind Singh, 2017 SCC Online Utt 1932] is upheld and affirmed. 25.2. The sentence ordered by the High Court through its order dated 10-7-2017 [State of Uttarakhand v. Govind Singh, GA No. 42 of 2010, decided on 10-7-2017 (Utt)] is modified and the sentence of imprisonment for life is altered by ordering the appellant to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of seven years which shall include the period of sentence already undergone by the appellant. The fine as imposed and the default sentence is sustained. 25.3. The appeal is allowed in part, in the above terms. 25.4. The parties to bear their own costs.” 31. Consequently, the Criminal Appeal No. 3820 of 2022 filed by the accused appellant Ankur Gupta succeeds and is allowed in part. The fine as imposed and the default sentence is sustained. 25.3. The appeal is allowed in part, in the above terms. 25.4. The parties to bear their own costs.” 31. Consequently, the Criminal Appeal No. 3820 of 2022 filed by the accused appellant Ankur Gupta succeeds and is allowed in part. Since the accused appellant Ankur Gupta has been taken in custody on 30.10.2016 and he has remained in jail ever since then and the period of incarceration undergone is more than 8 years with remission, as such, his sentence is modified to the sentence already undergone by him. The fine and the additional sentence, on failure to deposit the fine, are maintained. The appellant Ankur Gupta is set to liberty on the sentence already undergone, subject to observance of Section 437A Cr.P.C. provided he is not wanted in any other case. 32. Criminal Appeal No. 2023 of 2012 at the instance of accused appellant Smt. Vimlesh, accordingly, succeeds and is allowed. The judgment and order of conviction and sentence dated 09.03.2022, insofar as it convicts the accused appellant Smt. Vimlesh, is set aside. Accused appellant Smt. Vimlesh is reported to be in jail, she shall be released forthwith, subject to compliance of section 437A Cr.P.C. provided she is not wanted in any other case.