Life Imprisonment To Be Awarded In Rarest Of Rare Cases Of Brutal Killing: Allahabad High Court Reduces Accused's Life Term To 10 Years In Dowry Death Case

The High Court was considering an appeal filed against the judgment of the Additional Session Judge sentencing the accused-appellants to undergo imprisonment for life under Sections 304B IPC and Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act.

Referring to the judgment of the Apex Court in Hem Chand v. State of Haryana, (1994), the Division Bench of Justice Salil Kumar Rai and Justice Vinai Kumar Dwivedi held, “Thus, from the above case law of Hon’ble Supreme Court, it is clear that under Section 304B IPC for dowry death, life imprisonment should be awarded in rarest of the rare cases, where it is alleged that bride was killed in a brutal and ruthless manner and also where there is no mitigating circumstances, then in this condition, life imprisonment should be awarded as a rarest of the rare cases.”

“Since the accused-appellants have already served more than 10 years in jail, hence we reduce the sentence of both the accused-appellants as the period already undergone by them. Thus, the criminal appeal filed by the accused-appellants is liable to be partly allowed”, it added.

Advocate Arvind Kumar Srivastava represented the Appellant while Government Advocate represented the Respondent.

Factual Background

The informant alleged that her daughter's marriage was solemnised with Sherbaz @ Shadab. After the marriage, her in-laws used to taunt her for bringing less dowry, and the son-in-law used to demand a motorcycle. It was alleged that Sherbaz put kerosene on her daughter, and her mother-in-law and sister-in-law were saying to burn her to death as the demand for additional dowry was not fulfilled. After that, her brother-in-law, Shahzad and father-in-law, Shakeel, lit a fire with a matchstick and threw it on her daughter. The daughter of the informant was seriously burned. The first information report was lodged after the death of the daughter of the informant.

After recording the statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. of the prosecution witnesses, a charge-sheet was filed only against the accused appellants, Shakeel Ahmed and Sherbaj @ Shadab, under Section 304B IPC and Sections 3, 4 Dowry Prohibition Act. Other persons named as accused in the written report were exonerated by the police.

Reasoning

On a perusal of the facts of the case, the Bench noted that the prosecution's case was not supported by the prosecution's witnesses and other witnesses turned hostile during the recording of their evidence. “However, from perusal of the evidence of the prosecution witnesses, this fact is clearly proved that deceased Nazia died in her matrimonial home in unnatural circumstances by sustaining 80% burn injuries on her body. Thus the factum of unnatural death has been established by the evidence of the prosecution witnesses, Naseema (PW-1), Reshma (PW-2) and Asif @ Arif (PW-3)”, it added.

The Bench noted that the Trial Court had considered the fact that a young married lady of 22 years of age was burnt and sustained 80% burn injury in her matrimonial home and died at the hospital during treatment. The Bench also noticed that the Trial Court found that an unnatural and homicidal death had occurred in the house of the accused-appellants and, therefore, the burden was on the accused-appellants to explain the circumstances in which the deceased Nazia, received a burn injury of 80% on her body.

It was noted that the accused-appellants were unable to explain the burn injuries on the deceased by adducing any oral or documentary evidence. “As per law, it was the responsibility of the accused-appellants to explain this fact by adducing their evidence in this regard in their statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C”, it held.

On a perusal of the records, the Bench found that the families of the informant and the accused-appellants belong to the weaker sections of society, earning their livelihood by doing manual labour. “It is settled principle of law that punishment should be of the nature and extent that it must not be too lenient and also must not be too severe and harsh. Both sides belong to weaker sections of the society and are daily wage earner. In view of the above social condition and economic capacity of the accused-appellants as well as also of the prosecution sides, we find that life imprisonment under Section 304B IPC as awarded by learned Trial Court for life imprisonment is too harsh and severe”, it stated.

It was the defence of the accused-appellants that the stove exploded at the time of cooking food on the stove by the deceased, and the deceased caught fire and sustained burn injuries on her body. “We are of the view that the quantum of punishment should be proportionate. It should neither be too lenient nor too excessive and harsh. While awarding sentence, the Court must take an overall view of the facts and circumstances of the case, including the socio-economic conditions of both the parties, so as to meet the ends of justice and convey a clear message to society that no person could dare to commit any heinous crime”, it added.

As per the Bench, the ends of justice were to be met by reducing the sentence of life imprisonment, as awarded by the trial Court, to imprisonment for a period of ten years. Considering that the accused-appellants had already served more than 10 years in jail, the Bench reduced the sentence of both the accused-appellants by the period already undergone by them. Thus, the Bench partly allowed the criminal appeal filed by the accused-appellants.

Cause Title: Shakeel Ahmad and another v. State of U.P. (Neutral Citation: 2026:AHC:32236-DB)

Appearance

Appellant: Advocates Arvind Kumar Srivastava, R.P.S. Chauhan, Rajiv Sisodia, Shailesh Kumar Srivastava, Shyam Shanker Pandey

Respondent: Government Advocate

Click here to read/download Order