Grant of bail and suspension of sentence under Section 398 of CrPC, 1973

Isha Sawant | Government Law College | 24th August 2020

Preet Pal Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh

Facts:

The victim died of unnatural circumstances on the night of 24/25-08-2009 within 8½ months of her marriage with Respondent no-2 Sandeep Singh Hora. The appellant, victim’s father- Preet Pal Singh filed an FIR on 25-08-2009 at 3:50 am pursuant to which a criminal case was filed against the respondent no-2, his parents and sister- Sonia @ Disha Chugani under sections 498A, 304B, 406, 411 of the Indian Penal Code along with sections 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act. The case was committed to the Sessions Court, where the Respondent no-2 pleaded not guilty to the above-mentioned offences and was absolved of charges under section 411 of IPC.

The appellant, his wife, Rajendra Pal Kaur (victim’s sister) and his sister (victim’s aunt) were examined as witnesses by the prosecution, who gave oral evidence that the appellant had spent approximately 21 lakhs which was way beyond his financial capacity and gifted an I-10 car to the respondent after taking a loan against his financial capacity. However, after marriage which took place on 12-12-2009, the Respondent no-2 along with his parents started physically and mentally harassing her and demanded cash of Rs. 15 to 20 lakhs, which they alleged to have been promised by the victim’s parents and also demanded a Pajero car instead of I-10 car. They also used to pressurize the victim to bring cash from her parents, on 17-06-2010, the Respondent no-2 with his father Balvir Singh took cash of Rs. 2,50,000 from the victim’s brother- Pritam Singh. The victim used call her mother, aunt and maternal grandmother complaining of harassment by her in-laws, the appellant said that on the evening of 24-08-2010 the victim called him twice complaining of cruelty and expressed fear for her life, on the same night at 12:15 am he was informed of his daughter’s death. The post-mortem report stated death due to asphyxia caused due to ante-mortem hanging.

The Respondent no-2 and his parents were examined under section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC), 1973 during which they denied everything expect the date of marriage, they suggested the victim committed suicide and that the victim intended to marry a boy named Prashant Mishra and was compelled to marry Respondent no-2 by her parents. They alleged that that she used to frequently call and exchange messages with the boy, they also suggested that she committed suicide due to mental illness this was not supported by any evidence, they gave contradictory suggestions. The defence tried to establish victim’s involvement with Prashant Mishra, but he deposed that the phone number was in his name but he used to leave it home for use by his parents and sister Prachi- class friend of the victim, with whom she used to talk to; he stated that the calls and messages exchanged between the victim’s phone number and his phone were not done in his presence.

The Sessions Court considering the evidence and examinations made by both sides convicted the Respondent no-2 and his parents, his sister was acquitted of all charges against her. By an order dated 23.7.2018 the Sessions Court sentenced the Respondent No.2 to Life Imprisonment for offence under Section 304B of the IPC; Simple Imprisonment of one year and fine of Rs. 5,000/- under section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act along with punishment under other sections mentioned above, all the sentences were to run concurrently. Aggrieved by this conviction, Respondent no-2 filed an appeal before the Allahabad High Court making submissions that no FIR in relation to dowry demand and harassment was made by the appellant or victim; that Respondent no- 2 had taken a loan of Rs. 2,50,000 from the victim’s brother this was established as the victim’s brother was not examined as a witness, and that the victim had committed suicide, claiming that he was being framed. The High Court after recording submissions made by both parties passed a non-speaking order dated 21-01-2019. It chose not to comment on merits of the case and was of the opinion that the Respondent no-2 is entitled to be released on bail during pendency of appeal before the High Court. The appellant has thus approached the Supreme Court against the order of the Allahabad High Court granting bail to the Respondent no- 2 and suspension of conviction by the Sessions Court.

Issues:

• If the High Court was justified in granting bail to the Respondent no-2 during pendency of the appeal before it.

Legal Provisions: 

• Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 Section 389 
• Indian Penal Code, 1860 Sections 304B, 498A and 406 
• Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 Sections 3 and 4

 Observations of the Court:

The appeal was heard by the Supreme Court Bench of Arun Mishra and Indira Banerjee, JJ. The court did not go into the merits of the appeal pending before the High Court. It observed that the Sessions court proceeded on evidence and the Respondent no-2 was not able to prove any illegality in its decision. The court observed the section 389 of CrPC relating to suspension of sentence pending appeal and release of appellant on bail if in confinement, however none of the offences that Respondent no-2 was convicted of are bailable, under section 389 the court has an obligation to either establish ground for doubting validity of conviction or to see if there would an unreasonable delay in disposing the appeal before granting bail as held by the court in Kashmira Singh vs. State of Punjab (1977), however in the present case the High Court passed a non-speaking order granting bail to Respondent no-2.

The court after examining the provisions of Section 304B which covers every kind of death occurring in unnatural circumstances within 8 years of marriage in dowry death. The court referred to the case of State of Punjab vs. Iqbal Singh and Ors where it said that once there was material to show that victim was subjected to harassment before death, there is presumption of dowry death and the onus is on the accused in-laws to prove otherwise; evidence in the present case is enough to prove dowry death and the subsequent conviction under section 304B of IPC. The court then referred to the case of Kalyan Chandra Sarkar vs. Rakesh Rajan and Anr (2004) where the court held that in an appeal for grant of the bail the appellate court need not examine the evidence nor decide on the merits of the case but an order specifying reasons for granting bail needs to be made.

The court then made observations on the difference between grant of bail under Section 439 of CrPC in pre-trial arrest, and suspension of conviction under section 389 of CrPC and grant of bail post-conviction, provisions of section 389 mandates the order of granting bail should record/mention strong compelling reasons for granting bail by suspending conviction. The court than confirmed the evidence considered by the Trial court, the proof of demand of dowry, proof of death taking place within 8 ½ months of marriage, victim’s parents oral evidence stating harassment and torture of the victim up to the day of her death, evidence of Respondent no-2 taking Rs. 2,50,000 from victim’s brother; it also stated that the respondent no- 2 had been unable to prove any illegality or error in the findings and subsequent judgement of the Sessions Court to call for suspension of his conviction.

The court mentioned that in an appeal for suspension of sentence, the Appellate court has to only examine any uncertainty which may render the order of conviction to be erroneous and when the evidence has been examined the Trial Court it was not open for the appellate court to reassess the same evidence and take a different view to suspend execution of sentence and release the convict on bail. The court did not appreciate the High Court casually suspending the execution of sentence given by the Sessions Court and granting bail to Respondent no-2, it  did not find merit in the High Court accepting the submissions made by Respondent no-2 in his appeal and ignoring the evidence relied upon by the Sessions Court. 

Judgement:

The appeal was allowed and the impugned order of the High Court was set aside. The court directed Respondent no-2 to surrender for being taken into custody and cancelled the bail bond.