2020 (8) TMI 953 - SC - Indian Laws

Grant of bail - Dowry death - whether the High Court was justified in directing release of the Respondent No. 2 on bail, during the pendency of his appeal before the High Court? - HELD THAT - It is nobody s case that the death of the victim was accidental or natural. There is evidence of demand of dowry, which the Trial Court has considered. The death took place within 7 or 8 months and there is oral evidence of the parents of cruelty and torture immediately preceding the death. There is also evidence of payment of Rs. 2,50,000/- to the Respondent-Accused by the victim s brother. The Respondent No. 2 has not been able to demonstrate any apparent and/or obvious illegality or error in the judgment of the Sessions Court, to call for suspension of execution of the sentence. In considering an application for suspension of sentence, the Appellate Court is only to examine if there is such patent infirmity in the order of conviction that renders the order of conviction prima facie erroneous. Where there is evidence that has been considered by the Trial Court, it is not open to a Court considering application under Section 389 to re-assess and/or re-analyze the same evidence and take a different view, to suspend the execution of the sentence and release the convict on bail. From the evidence of the Prosecution witnesses, it transpires that the Appellant had spent money beyond his financial capacity, at the wedding of the victim and had even gifted an I-10 car. The hapless parents were hoping against hope that there would be an amicable settlement. Even as late as on 17.6.2010 the brother of the victim paid Rs. 2,50,000/- to the Respondent No. 2. The failure to lodge an FIR complaining of dowry and harassment before the death of the victim, is inconsequential. The parents and other family members of the victim obviously would not want to precipitate a complete break down of the marriage by lodging an FIR against the Respondent No. 2 and his parents, while the victim was alive. The impugned order of the High Court is set aside and the Respondent No. 2 is directed to surrender for being taken into custody. The bail bonds shall stand cancelled - Appeal allowed.

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Whether the High Court was justified in granting bail to the Respondent No. 2 during the pendency of his appeal.
2. Examination of the evidence and findings of the Sessions Court regarding the conviction under Sections 304B, 498A, and 406 of the IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act.
3. The application of Section 389 of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC) regarding the suspension of sentence and grant of bail post-conviction.
4. The interpretation and application of Section 304B of the IPC concerning dowry death.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Justification of Bail Grant by High Court:
The primary issue was whether the High Court acted appropriately in granting bail to the Respondent No. 2 during the appeal's pendency. The Supreme Court scrutinized the High Court's order, which was a "short, cryptic, non-speaking order" lacking detailed reasoning. The Court emphasized that bail in post-conviction scenarios should be granted with strong, compelling reasons, especially in serious offenses like dowry death. The High Court's order was found deficient as it did not record reasons for its decision, violating the principles established in precedents such as Kashmira Singh v. State of Punjab and Babu Singh and Ors. v. State of U.P.

2. Examination of Evidence and Findings by Sessions Court:
The Sessions Court had meticulously recorded evidence, including oral testimonies from the victim's family, indicating harassment and dowry demands soon after marriage. The evidence suggested that the victim was subjected to cruelty and harassment, which continued until her death. The Sessions Court convicted the Respondent No. 2 and his parents based on this evidence. The Supreme Court noted that the High Court's bail order did not adequately consider this evidence, nor did it address any patent infirmity in the Sessions Court's findings.

3. Application of Section 389 CrPC:
Under Section 389, the Appellate Court must record reasons in writing when suspending a sentence and granting bail post-conviction. The Supreme Court highlighted that the High Court failed to provide such reasons, making its order unsustainable. The Court reiterated that post-conviction bail requires a judicial exercise of discretion, considering the prima facie merits of the appeal and other factors, as established in precedents like Kalyan Chadra Sarkar v. Rajesh Ranjan.

4. Interpretation and Application of Section 304B IPC:
Section 304B deals with dowry death, and its essential ingredients include the unnatural death of a woman within seven years of marriage, preceded by cruelty or harassment related to dowry demands. The Supreme Court emphasized the legislative intent to curb dowry deaths and noted that once cruelty or harassment is established, there is a presumption of dowry death. The Court found that the evidence supported such a presumption in this case, and the Respondent No. 2 failed to rebut it effectively.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court concluded that the High Court's order granting bail was unjustified due to the lack of recorded reasons and the serious nature of the charges. The appeal was allowed, the High Court's order was set aside, and the Respondent No. 2 was directed to surrender for custody. This decision underscores the importance of detailed reasoning in judicial orders, especially in serious criminal cases involving dowry death.