1. It is an appeal by special leave against the judgment of the High Court of Rajasthan wherein the learned judges hearing the appeal against the conviction of the appellant under Section 302 IPC and sentence of imprisonment for life, enhanced the sentence to sentence of death

2. The trial court i. e. the Sessions Judge, Jaipur who tried the case considered the question of sentence and in his judgment gave the reasons for not giving the death penalty. One of the reasons which weighed with the learned Sessions Judge was that although him certain state of mind this appellant poured kerosene and lighted the matchstick resulting in the injuries to his wife but immediately thereafter he realised and subsequently made attempts to save her. Learned judge also considered the age of the appellant and under these circumstances the death penalty was not inflicted on the appellant

3. While considering the appeal preferred by the appellant against his conviction and sentence, learned judges of the High Court after giving an opportunity of hearing enhanced the sentence and passed sentence of death against the appellant. But unfortunately the learned judges did not examine the reasons given by the trial court. Nor came to the conclusion that they were not good reasons. But the learned judges referred to the general conditions of our social order and the also the dowry deaths which are becoming common in our society. But even while considering all these circumstances, the learned judges omitted to notice that there is nothing in evidence of this case to indicate that the incident had anything to do with the dowry or anything of that kind. It is also significant to note that the daughter of the deceased remained unhurt although she was sleeping along with the deceased.

4. All the circumstances clearly go to show that something must have happened because of which the appellant lost his balance. After the incident, however, he took her to his relations and to Dr. Saxena. He also informed her parents about the incident indicating that he tried to do something to save her. Under these circumstances, in our opinion, the High Court was not right in interfering with the question of sentence without considering the reasons which weighed with the trial court for not awarding the sentence of death4. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant frankly conceded that there is no scope for him to raise any contention about the merits of the matter and therefore he did not press any question except the question of sentence in this appeal.

5. The appeal is therefore allowed partly.

6. The conviction of the appellant is maintained but the sentence is altered into one which was awarded by the trial court i. e. imprisonment for life.