The Lucknow bench of the Allahabad high court has held that the maximum penalty of life imprisonment for the offence of dowry death under Section 304B of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) must not be imposed as a “matter of course”. Instead, this “extreme” punishment must be awarded only in the “rarest of rare” cases.
A division bench of Justice Rajesh Singh Chauhan and Justice Indrajeet Shukla passed the judgement on May 22 while partly allowing the appeal filed by three convicted persons. The court made the observation while upholding the conviction of a husband and his parents in a 2012 dowry death case pertaining to Mall police station in Lucknow.
The bench, however, applied the principle of proportional sentencing and commuted the sentences awarded by the trial court — life imprisonment for the mother-in-law, Ram Rati, and 20 years’ imprisonment for the husband and father-in-law — to the period of incarceration already undergone by them.
The court said that although the crime committed was “one of the most heinous and grave crimes” and did not call for any leniency, sentencing must nonetheless be guided by the judicial principles of proportionality and individual culpability.
The court noted that in the present case, no “plausible reasons” had been recorded by the trial court as to why the maximum punishment of life imprisonment had been awarded to the appellants. Hence, it found it appropriate to commute their sentences to the period already undergone, while noting that the mother-in-law had already served over 15 years, and the husband and father-in-law had served over 10 and nine years respectively.
{{/usCountry}}The court noted that in the present case, no “plausible reasons” had been recorded by the trial court as to why the maximum punishment of life imprisonment had been awarded to the appellants. Hence, it found it appropriate to commute their sentences to the period already undergone, while noting that the mother-in-law had already served over 15 years, and the husband and father-in-law had served over 10 and nine years respectively.
{{/usCountry}}As per the prosecution’s case, the informant’s daughter and victim, Sujata, was married to the accused, Sunil Kumar, around one-and-a-half years prior to the incident. Right from the beginning, her in-laws allegedly harassed her for additional dowry, specifically demanding a motorcycle and a fan. However, owing to her father’s poor financial condition, the demands could not be fulfilled.
On May 13, 2012, the informant received information that his daughter had caught fire and was being taken to the SPM Civil Hospital in Lucknow by her in-laws. When he reached the hospital, the victim’s in-laws allegedly fled the spot.
The victim’s statement was subsequently recorded by the SDM (Malihabad). In her statement/dying declaration, she stated that her husband had beaten her the previous day and that the following morning, her mother-in-law, father-in-law and husband poured kerosene on her and set her ablaze. The victim ultimately died on June 4, 2012.
While confirming their conviction, the bench modified their sentences to the period already undergone.