The Allahabad High Court (Lucknow Bench) has held that life imprisonment cannot be awarded in a dowry-death case as a matter of course and that “reason for extreme penalty must be given.”
It further observed that the trial court had failed to balance the aggravating and mitigating circumstances substantively.
The order was delivered by a division bench of Justice Abdul Moin and Justice Pramod Kumar Srivastava on an appeal filed by Sandeep Singh Hora against his conviction in the dowry-death case.
The FIR was registered at Talkatora Police Station, Lucknow, under Sections 498-A, 304-B, 406 and 411 IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act.
According to the allegation, the informant (father) had solemnized the marriage of his daughter (deceased) with appellant. The informant had given a dowry according to his capacity, but after marriage, the appellant, along with other family members, tortured and pressurized her to bring more dowry from her family.
Further, it was also alleged that on the date of the incident, the deceased made several calls to her father and told him that the accused persons are harassing her.
Read also: Allahabad HC Stays Three-Member Benches for Land Cases
Later on, on the same night at about 12.15 at night, Balveer Singh had informed the informant that the deceased had died.
On the basis of the written tahrir, the appellant had been convicted under Section 304-B IPC and sentenced to life imprisonment, besides sentences under Sections 498-A and 406 IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act.
After investigation, the investigating officer submitted a charge sheet under the aforesaid sections against the appellant, his father, his mother and his sister.
The trial court, after hearing counsel for both the parties and analysing the entire oral as well as documentary evidence, found the appellant and two others guilty of the said offence, but they were acquitted of the alternative charge of Section 302 of I.P.C.
Read also: Allahabad HC Grants 85-Year-Old Retired Police Officer Promotion Benefits From 1980
In the instant appeal, the appellant had challenged the conviction order dated 23.07.2018 passed by the Additional District/Sessions Judge/Special Judge, (E.C. Act), Lucknow, in Sessions Trial No. 1385 of 2010.
Before the High Court, counsel for the appellant argued that he did not challenge his conviction on merits and confined his appeal to the quantum of sentence.
The bench noted that the trial court had awarded life imprisonment merely after finding that the death was unnatural, cruelty had been established and the offence was heinous.
It held that the trial court “did not give any cogent reason with regard to awarding a maximum punishment to the husband of the deceased/appellant”.
Read also: Gujarat High Court Quashes GST Recovery Order for Denial of Proper Hearing
Referring to the Supreme Court’s judgments in Hem Chand vs. State of Haryana, passed in Criminal Appeal No. 690 of 1994 decided on 06.10.1994 reported in 1994 (6) SCC 565, and G.V. Siddaramesh vs. State of Karnataka, decided on 05.02.2010 reported in (2010) 3 SCC 152, the bench observed that imprisonment for life in a dowry-death case should be awarded only for rare cases.
It also noted that there was no direct evidence connecting the appellant with the death, although the statutory presumption under Section 304-B IPC applied.
The court further took note of the appellant’s age, the fact that the incident had occurred 16 years earlier, his having undergone 6 years, 4 months and 19 days of actual imprisonment, and the absence of any adverse report regarding his antecedents, behaviour or conduct after the judgment.
Finding that the case did not fall in the category of a “rare case”, the bench reduced the sentence under Section 304-B IPC from life imprisonment to 10 years’ rigorous imprisonment, while confirming the other convictions and sentences.
Case: Sandeep Singh Hora vs State of U.P.
Case No: Criminal Appeal No. – 1594 of 2018
Date of Order: 07.08.2026
Status: Partly Allowed
