Allahabad High Court upholds dowry-death convictions but reduces life sentences to time already served

A bench of Justice Salil Kumar Rai and Justice Vinai Kumar Dwivedi heard Criminal Appeal No. 2903 of 2020, in which two accused challenged their conviction and life sentences under Section 304B IPC (dowry death) and conviction under Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act arising out of an 80% burn death of a 22‑year‑old woman at her matrimonial home.

The High Court upheld the trial court’s finding of guilt but significantly reduced the punishment. The Court observed that while the prosecution had established an “unnatural death” within seven years of marriage and applied the presumption under Section 304B IPC, sentencing required care and proportionality. The Court, in its reasoning, observed: “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. Likewise there is a presumption under Section 113‑B of the Evidence Act as to the dowry death. 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 in the section are satisfied. In the instant case the prosecution has proved that the deceased died an unnatural death, but there is no direct evidence connecting the accused with the death. The accused has not been charged under Section 302 IPC. 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 i.e., absence of direct connection of the accused with death has certainly to be taken into consideration in balancing the sentence to be awarded to the accused. 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.” The Court further stated that, having regard to the facts and the socio‑economic conditions of the parties, “the ends of justice would be met by reducing the sentence of life imprisonment ... to imprisonment for a period of ten years.”

Background
The prosecution case arose from a written report (Ext. K‑1) by the informant Naseema alleging dowry demands and that her daughter Nazia was set alight at the matrimonial home on 09.04.2015 after kerosene was poured and ignited; Nazia later died in hospital. Police registered FIR (Ext. K‑11) and the post‑mortem (Ext. K‑10) recorded approximately 80% burn injuries and death due to shock and septicemia. The trial court framed charges under Section 304B IPC (alternatively 302/34 IPC) and Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, and convicted and sentenced both accused to life imprisonment under Section 304B IPC and two years’ jail with fine under the Dowry Prohibition Act.

At trial several witnesses, including the informant, turned hostile but the court accepted the dying declaration (Ext. K‑3) and evidence of PW‑4 (who recorded the dying declaration) and PW‑9 (medical certification) to hold that the death was homicidal in nature. The accused contended that a stove explosion caused the fire and they had not poured kerosene or set the deceased alight; they did not lead defence evidence.

Applying the precedent in Hem Chand v. State of Haryana and considering the socio‑economic conditions of both families, the High Court found the conviction sustainable but held life imprisonment to be excessive in the circumstances and reduced the sentence to ten years, noting that the accused had already undergone more than ten years’ detention and directing that “Let the accused‑appellants be released forthwith.” The appeal was accordingly partly allowed.

Case Details:
Case No.: Criminal Appeal No. - 2903 of 2020
Case Title: Shakeel Ahmad and another Versus State of U.P.
Appearances:
For the Petitioner(s): Arvind Kumar Srivastava; R.P.S. Chauhan; Rajiv Sisodia; Shailesh Kumar Srivastava; Shyam Shanker Pandey
For the Respondent(s): G.A.