Fine in Addition to Sentence Cannot Be Imposed Where Statute Does Not Provide for It

Allahabad High Court 

Why in News? 

Justice Zafeer Ahmad, in Laxmi Narayan v. State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy./Prin. Secy. Home Lko (2026), while considering a bail application in a pending appeal, flagged a "glaring error" in the trial court's imposition of a fine under Section 304-B IPC (Section 80 of BNS) holding that the provision does not prescribe any fine in addition to the sentence. 

What was the Background of Laxmi Narayan v. State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy./Prin. Secy. Home Lko (2026) Case? 

• The appellant, Laxmi Narayan, was convicted under Sections 498A and 304-B IPC and Section 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act in connection with a 2000 dowry death case from Lucknow. 
• For the offence under Section 304-B IPC, the trial court sentenced him to 10 years' rigorous imprisonment and imposed a fine of ₹20,000. 
• The trial court also imposed 3 years' rigorous imprisonment with a fine of ₹6,000 under Section 498A IPC, and one year's rigorous imprisonment with a fine of ₹2,000 under Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. 
• The appellant challenged his conviction before the High Court in 2025, and moved a bail application in the pending appeal. 

What were the Court's Observations? 

• On the Fine Imposed Under Section 304-B IPC: 
  The Court expressed surprise that the trial judge had imposed a fine on the accused under Section 304-B IPC, and clarified that the legislature has not prescribed the imposition of any fine for an offence punishable under this provision. 
• On the Limits of Sentencing Power: 
  The Court held that a court can award only such sentence as is prescribed by the statute, and where the statute does not provide for imposition of a fine for a particular offence, the court cannot impose a fine in addition to the sentence prescribed therein. 
• On the Conduct of the Trial Judge: 
  The Court expressed concern that the error had been committed by a Judicial Officer of the rank of Additional District and Sessions Judge, describing it as "unfortunate" that such a glaring error had occurred, and observed that the sentence had been passed without duly considering the provisions of Section 304-B IPC. The Senior Registrar was directed to send a copy of the order to the concerned trial judge through the District Judge, for his future guidance. 
• On the Grant of Bail: 
  On the merits of the bail application, the Court noted that the appellant had remained on bail during the trial and had not misused that liberty, and accordingly directed his release on bail. 
• The Court directed the accused to deposit the ₹8,000 fine imposed under Sections 498A IPC and 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act within four weeks of his release, while staying the fine imposed under Section 304-B IPC. The appellant was further directed to cooperate in the early disposal of the appeal without seeking unnecessary adjournments and not to indulge in any criminal activity after his release. 

What is Section 80 of BNS? 

Section 80, BNS — Dowry Death: 

• Chapter: Chapter V (Offences Affecting the Human Body) 
• Applies when:  
  • Death of a woman is caused by burns, bodily injury, or occurs otherwise than under normal circumstances 
  • Death occurs within seven years of her marriage 
  • It is shown that soon before her death, she was subjected to cruelty or harassment by her husband or any relative of her husband 
  • Such cruelty/harassment was for, or in connection with, a demand for dowry 
• Legal effect: Such death is termed "dowry death," and the husband/relative is deemed to have caused her death 
• "Dowry" defined: Same meaning as under Section 2 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 
• Punishment: Imprisonment for a minimum of 7 years, extendable up to imprisonment for life 
• No fine prescribed — courts cannot impose a fine in addition to the sentence 
• Classification:  
  • Cognizable 
  • Non-bailable 
  • Triable by Court of Session