Supreme Court of India

Preet Pal Singh vs The State Of Uttar Pradesh on 14 August, 2020

Equivalent citations: AIR 2020 SUPREME COURT 3995, AIRONLINE 2020 SC 682

Author:
Indira Banerjee

Bench:
Indira Banerjee
,
Arun Mishra
REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 520 OF 2020
[ARISING OUT OF SLP (CRL.) No.2102 OF 2019]

PREET PAL SINGH …….Appellant

versus

THE STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH & ANR. …..Respondents

JUDGMENT

Indira Banerjee, J.

Leave granted.

2. This appeal, filed by the father of the deceased victim, is

against the order dated 21.01.2019 passed by the Allahabad High

Court, Lucknow Bench in Criminal Misc. Application No. 129789 of

2018, in Criminal Appeal No. 1594 of 2018, whereby the High Court

granted bail to the Respondent No.2, Sandeep Singh Hora, husband of

Signature Not Verified

Digitally signed by

INDU MARWAH

the deceased victim, convicted by a judgment dated 23.7.2018 of

Date: 2020.08.14

13:25:34 IST

Reason:

the Additional District and Sessions Judge/Special Judge (EC Act),

Lucknow, hereinafter referred to as the “Sessions Court” in Sessions
Trial No.1385 of 2010, for offences under
Sections 304B
,
498A
and
of the Indian Penal Code (
IPC
) and
Sections 3
and
of the Dowry

Prohibition Act, 1961 by staying execution of the sentences of

imprisonment.

3. By an order dated 23.7.2018 in Sessions Trial No.1385 of 2010

the Sessions Court sentenced the Respondent No.2 to Simple

Imprisonment of 3 years and fine of Rs.10,000/- under
Section 498A

of the IPC and in default of payment of fine to further Simple

Imprisonment of 3 months; Life Imprisonment for offence under

Section 304B
of the IPC; Simple Imprisonment for 3 years and fine of

Rs.5,000/- for offence under
Section 406
of the IPC and in default of

payment of fine, further simple imprisonment of 2 months; Simple

Imprisonment for 5 years and fine of Rs.15,000/- under
Section 3
of

the Dowry Prohibition Act and in default of payment of fine, further

Simple Imprisonment of 3 months and Simple Imprisonment of one

year and fine of Rs.5,000/- under
Section 4
of the Dowry Prohibition

Act and, in default of payment of fine, further Simple Imprisonment of

3 months. All the sentences were to run concurrently.

4. Being aggrieved by the conviction and sentence, the

Respondent No.2 filed an appeal in the High Court which was

numbered Criminal Appeal No.9514 of 2018. After filing the appeal,

the Respondent No.2 filed Criminal Misc. Application No.129789 of

2018 inter alia praying that he be enlarged on bail, during the

pendency of the aforesaid appeal. The said application has been
allowed by the order dated 21.1.2019 under appeal.

5. The High Court recorded the submission made on behalf of the

Respondent No.2 that (i) No FIR in relation to demand for dowry or

harassment had been filed before the death of the victim; (ii) the

Respondent No.2 had taken Rs. 2,50,000/- as loan from the brother of

the victim and not as dowry, which was established because the

brother of the victim had not been produced as a witness; and (iii)

that the deceased had committed suicide which was evident from the

post mortem report. The cause of death as shown in the post mortem

report was “asphyxia as a result of ante mortem hanging”.

6. The High Court briefly recorded the submission on behalf of the

State and on behalf of the Appellant and then the submission on

behalf of the Respondent No.2, in rebuttal, that the Respondent No.2

had been framed.

7. After recording the submissions of the respective parties, the

High Court passed a short, cryptic, non speaking order, under appeal

before this Court, which is set out hereinbelow for convenience:-

“After hearing learned counsel for the parties and going
through the record, we find force in the arguments raised by
learned counsel for the accused-appellant. Keeping in view
the facts and circumstances of the case, without commenting
anything on merits of the case, we are of the considered
opinion that accused-appellant is entitled to be released on
bail.

Let accused-appellant, namely Sandeep Singh Hora convicted
in aforesaid Sessions Trial No. 1385 of 2010 be enlarged on bail
during pendency of appeal subject to his furnishing a personal
bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the
satisfaction of court concerned.
It is clarified that no stay order has been passed in respect of
fine imposed on the accused appellant and the same shall be
deposited within four weeks from today and in default, the
accused-appellant shall be deprived from the benefit of the
bail order passed today.

The bail bonds after being accepted, shall be transmitted to
this Court for being kept on record of this appeal.”

8. It is not in dispute that the victim died in circumstances which

were not natural, on the night of 24/25.8.2010, within about 8½

months of her marriage with the Respondent No.2 on 12.12.2009.

9. On 25.8.2010, at about 3.05 a.m., a First Information Report

No.352/2010 was registered on the complaint of the Appellant,

pursuant to which, a criminal case being Crime No.480 of 2010 was

initiated against Respondent No.2, his parents and his sister Sonia @

Disha Chhugani under
Sections 498A
,
304B
,
and
of the IPC

and
Sections 3
and
of the Dowry Prohibition Act.

10. After investigation into the case, the Investigating Officer

submitted a chargesheet against the Respondent No.2, his father

Balvir Singh, his mother Manjeet Kaur and his sister Sonia @ Disha

Chhugani.

11. The case was committed to the Sessions Court, after which

charges were framed against the accused under
Sections 498A
,
304B

and
of IPC and
Sections 3
and
of the Dowry Prohibition Act, to

which the accused pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. The accused
were absolved of the charge under
Section 411
of the IPC.

12. In Sessions Trial No.1385 of 2010, the Prosecution examined

eight witnesses, including the Appellant, being the complainant in the

FIR, his wife, being the mother of the victim and his sister Rajendra

Pal Kaur, being the paternal aunt of the victim. The defence also

examined five witnesses. The Respondent No.2 and the other accused

were examined under
Section 313
of the Criminal Procedure Code

(
CrPC
).

13. The evidence adduced before the Sessions Court, has

meticulously been recorded in the judgment and order dated

23.7.2018, under appeal before the High Court. The family members

of the victim, who deposed before the Sessions Court, have given oral

evidence that the Appellant had spent money beyond his financial

capacity, for the wedding of his daughter, that is, the victim.

However, soon after the marriage of the victim to the Respondent

No.2 on 12.12.2009, the victim’s in-laws as well as the Respondent

No.2, her husband, harassed her mentally and physically for more

dowry.

14. From the oral evidence of the victim’s parents, and other family

members, it transpires that the victim used to make phone calls to

her mother, maternal grandmother and her aunt, complaining of

harassment meted out to her by the members of her matrimonial

family. There is oral evidence that the Appellant’s wife used to

console her by saying that things would settle down in due course.
15. From the oral evidence it also transpires that the in-laws of the

victim used to pressurize the victim to bring cash from her parents.

On 17.6.2010, the Respondent No.2 along with his father Balvir Singh

came to Sitapur and took cash of Rs.2,50,000/- from the victim’s

brother, Pritam Singh. From the oral evidence of the Appellant, it

transpires that on the evening of 24.8.2010, the victim rang up the

Appellant twice, complaining of atrocities. She was frightened and

expressed fear for her life. On the same night at 12.15 a.m. the

Appellant was informed that his daughter had died.

16. The 2nd Prosecution Witness, being the mother of the victim,

stated that the family had spent approximately Rs.21 lacs for the

marriage of the victim. They had gifted I-10 car, which they had

purchased, after obtaining loan against insurance policy. However,

after marriage, the in-laws of the victim started harassing the victim,

demanding cash of Rs.15 to 20 lacs, alleged to have been promised

by her parents and also demanding a Pajero car in place of the I-10

car.

17. The post mortem report reveals the following ante-mortem

injuries:-

“Oblique ligature mark 30 cm x 1.5 cm on front and around the
neck just above thyroid cartilage; both lungs and membranes
congested; right heart chamber full and left empty; there was
some semi-digested food material available in stomach; liver,
spleen, both kidneys congested; uterus empty and normal; the
death had possibly taken place half day before post-mortem.
As per the opinion of the witness, the deceased had died due
to asphyxia as a result of ante mortem hanging.”
18. The Respondent No. 2 and his parents were examined under

Section 313
of the Cr.PC. They denied practically everything, except

the fact that the Respondent No.2 had married the victim on

12.12.2009. They emphasized on the fact that the victim had

committed suicide, and contended that the entire investigation had

been conducted under the supervision and instructions of a motivated

IPS officer, who was a friend of the Appellant.

19. The Respondent No.2 and/or his parents have, in their

examination under
Section 313
of the CrPC, suggested that the

deceased victim had wanted to marry some other boy, but had been

compelled by her parents to marry the Respondent No.2 and that she

frequently used to talk with and exchange messages with that boy.

There is also a suggestion that the victim had committed suicide

because of mental illness. Significantly, on the one hand it is

insinuated that her involvement with another boy led to the suicide

and on the other hand it is suggested that she committed suicide due

to mental illness. The suggestions are somewhat contradictory and in

any case the suggestion of mental illness is unsupported by any

evidence whatsoever.

20. Through three of the witnesses examined by the defence,

namely, one Shri K.K. Pandey, Sub-Divisional Engineer, Mobile

Services (Security) who deposed as the 1st Defence Witness, Shri

Madhu Balusu, Nodal Officer, Reliance Communications, Gomti Nagar,

Lucknow who deposed as 2nd Defence Witness, and Shri Prashant

Mishra who deposed as 3rd Defence Witness, the defence made an
attempt to establish the victim’s involvement with the said Prashant

Mishra. The evidence of the aforesaid three witnesses evinces calls

from the victim’s phone to the phone in the name of Prashant Mishra,

and from the said phone to the phone of the victim and also exchange

of some messages between the two phones. However, the said

Prashant Mishra, who deposed as Defence witness said, that the

phone in his name was always kept at home and used by his parents

and sister. The victim was a class friend of his sister, Prachi. He did

not know the mobile number of the victim. The victim used to talk to

his sister Prachi. This witness deposed that he knew that the victim

had married the Respondent No.2. He said that his sister Prachi and

his mother had attended the wedding. This witness categorically

asserted that phone calls to and from the victim from this phone

number were not made in his presence, nor were the messages

exchanged in his presence.

21. The 4th Defence Witness, Smt. Lajwanti Chugani (mother-in-law

of Sonia @ Disha Chhugani) and the 5th Defence Witness Shri

Bhagwan Das Chugani (father-in-law of Sonia alias Disha Chhugani)

deposed that their daughter in law Sonia did not have good relations

with her parents as she had left her first husband and remarried their

son against the wishes of her parents.

22. The Sessions Court considered the evidence adduced on behalf

of the Prosecution, including the oral evidence of the family members

of the victim, the evidence of the defence witnesses and the defence

of the Respondent No.2, his parents and his sister under
Section 313
of the CrPC and thereafter convicted the Respondent No.2 as also his

parents Balvir Singh and Manjeet Kaur under
Sections 498A
,
304B

and
of the IPC and under
Sections 3
and
of the Dowry

Prohibition Act. The Respondent No.2’s sister Sonia @ Disha

Chugani was acquitted of all the charges against her.

23. The judgment and order of the Sessions Court, under appeal in

the High Court is based on evidence. The oral evidence adduced

before the Sessions Court, which has meticulously been recorded in

the judgment and order dated 23.7.2008, under appeal before the

High Court, reveals that there is evidence of torture and harassment

of the victim, by the Respondent No. 2 and his parents, for more

dowry, soon after marriage, which continued till her death. The

victims husband (Respondent No. 2) and her in laws pressurized the

victim to bring cash from her parents and also pressurized her for a

Pajero car in place of the I-10 car gifted by her parents at the time of

marriage. The Respondent No. 2 came to Sitapur along with his

father, Balvir Singh on 17.6.2010 and took cash of Rs.2,50,000/- from

the victim’s brother, Pritam Singh. Even as late as on the evening of

24.8.2010, the Respondent No.2 went to the residence of the victim’s

aunt and threatened to put an end to the marriage. On 24.8.2010,

the victim had made frantic calls complaining of torture, and

expressing fear for her life. From the oral evidence, it may be

reasonably inferred that she was traumatized. The same night, she

died in unnatural circumstances.

24. It is not for this Court to go into the merits of the appeal
pending before the High Court. Suffice it to mention that prima facie

the Sessions Court has proceeded on the basis of evidence and the

Respondent No.2 has not been able to make out a case of any patent

infirmity and/or illegality in the judgment and order of the Sessions

Court.

25. The Short question that arises for consideration in this appeal

is, 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.

26. Section 389 provides that, pending any appeal by a convicted

person, the Appellate Court may, for reasons to be recorded by it in

writing, order that the execution of the sentence or order appealed

against, be suspended and, also, if he is in confinement, that he be

released on bail. Of course, in view of the mandate of
Section 389(3)

of the CrPC, the principles are different in the case of sentence not

exceeding three years and/or in the case of bailable offences. In this

case, of course, none of the offences for which the Respondent No. 2

has been convicted are bailable. Moreover the Respondent No.2 has,

inter alia, been given life imprisonment for offence under
Section

304B
of the IPC and imprisonment for five years for offence under

Section 3
of the Dowry Prohibition Act.

27. As the discretion under Section 389(1) is to be exercised

judicially, the Appellate Court is obliged to consider whether any

cogent ground has been disclosed, giving rise to substantial doubts

about the validity of the conviction and whether there is likelihood of
unreasonable delay in disposal of the appeal, as held by this Court in

Kashmira Singh v. State of Punjab1
and
Babu Singh and Ors. v.

State of U.P.2

28. Section 304B was incorporated in the
Indian Penal Code
by the

Dowry Prohibition (Amendment) Act, 1986
(Act 43 of 1986). The

object of the amendment was to curb dowry death. Section 304B

does not categorize death, it covers every kind of death that occurs

otherwise than in normal circumstances. Where the other ingredients

of Section 304B of the Code are satisfied, the deeming fiction of

Section 304B would be attracted and the husband or the relatives

shall be deemed to have caused the death of the bride.

29. The essential ingredients for attraction of Section 304B are:

(i) the death of woman must have been caused in
unnatural circumstances.

(ii) the death should have occurred within 7 years of
marriage

(iii) Soon before her death the woman must have been

subjected to cruelty or harassment by her husband
or his relatives and such cruelty or harassment
must be for or in connection with the demand for
dowry, and such cruelty or harassment is shown to
have been meted out to the woman soon before
her death.

30. As observed by this Court in
State of Punjab v. Iqbal Singh

& Ors.3
, the legislative intent of incorporating Section 304B was to

curb the menace of dowry death with a firm hand. In dealing with

1. (1977) 4 SCC 291

2. (1978) 1 SCC 579

3. (1991) 3 SCC 1
cases under Section 304B, this legislative intent has to be kept in

mind. Once there is material to show that the victim was subjected to

cruelty or harassment before death, there is a presumption of dowry

death and the onus is on the accused in-laws to show otherwise. At

the cost of repetition, it is reiterated that the death in this case took

place within 8½ months of marriage. There is apparently evidence of

harassment of the victim for dowry even on the day of her death, and

there is also evidence of payment of a sum of Rs.2,50,000/- to the

Respondent-Accused by the victim’s brother, two months before her

death.

31.
In
Kalyan Chadra Sarkar v. Rajesh Ranjan and Anr.
4, this

Court held:-

“11. The law in regard to grant or refusal of bail is very well
settled. The Court granting bail should exercise its
discretion in a judicious manner and not as a matter of
course. Though at the stage of granting bail a detailed
examination of evidence and elaborate documentation of
the merits of the case need not be undertaken, there is a
need to indicate in such orders reasons for prima facie
concluding why bail was being granted particularly where
the accused is charged of having committed a serious
offence. Any order devoid of such reasons would suffer from
non-application of mind.”

32. Even though detailed examination of the merits of the case may

not be required by courts while considering an application for bail but,

at the same time, exercise of jurisdiction has to be based on well

settled principles and in a judicious manner and not as a matter of

course as held by this Court in
Chaman Lal v. State of U.P. and

Anr.5
.

4. (2004) 7 SCC 528

5. (2004) 7 SCC 525
33.
In
Mauji Ram v. State of Uttar Pradesh and Anr.
6, this

Court referred to
Ajay Kumar Sharma v. State of U.P. and Ors.
7,

Lokesh Singh v. State of U.P. and Anr.
8 and
Dataram Singh v.

State of U.P. and Anr.9
and stated categorically that this Court had

time and again emphasised the need for assigning reasons while

granting bail.

34.
In
Lokesh Singh v. State of U.P. and Anr.
(supra), this Court

referred to
Kalyan Chadra Sarkar v. Rajesh Ranjan
(supra) and

set aside the impugned order of the High Court granting bail.

35.
In
Ajay Kumar Sharma
(supra), a three-Judge Bench of this

Court relied on
Chaman Lal v. State of U.P.
(supra) and set aside

order of bail granted by the High Court holding, that it was well

settled that even though detailed examination of the merits of the

case may not be required by the courts while considering an

application for bail, at the same time exercise of discretion has to be

based on well settled principles and in a judicious manner and not as

a matter of course.

36. There is a difference between grant of bail under
Section 439
of

the CrPC in case of pre-trial arrest and suspension of sentence under

Section 389
of the CrPC and grant of bail, post conviction. In the

earlier case there may be presumption of innocence, which is a

fundamental postulate of criminal jurisprudence, and the courts may

6. (2019) 8 SCC 17

7. (2005) 7 SCC 507

8. (2008) 16 SCC 753

9. (2018) 3 SCC 22
be liberal, depending on the facts and circumstances of the case, on

the principle that bail is the rule and jail is an exception, as held by

this Court in
Dataram Singh v. State of U.P. and Anr.
(supra).

However, in case of post conviction bail, by suspension of operation

of the sentence, there is a finding of guilt and the question of

presumption of innocence does not arise. Nor is the principle of bail

being the rule and jail an exception attracted, once there is conviction

upon trial. Rather, the Court considering an application for

suspension of sentence and grant of bail, is to consider the prima

facie merits of the appeal, coupled with other factors.
There should

be strong compelling reasons for grant of bail, notwithstanding an

order of conviction, by suspension of sentence, and this strong and

compelling reason must be recorded in the order granting bail, as

mandated in Section 389(1) of the Cr.P.C.

37.
In
Vinod Singh Negi v. State of Uttar Pradesh and Anr.
10,

this Court set aside the impugned order of suspension of sentence

and grant of appeal as the order was devoid of reasons.

38. 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

10 (2019) 8 SCC 13
and/or obvious illegality or error in the judgment of the Sessions

Court, to call for suspension of execution of the sentence.

39. 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.

40. Even though the term ‘dowry’ is not defined in the
Indian Penal

Code
, it is defined in the
Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961
as any valuable

security given or agreed to be given either directly or indirectly by

one party to the marriage to the other party to the marriage, or by

any person at or before or any time after the marriage, in connection

with the marriage of the parties.

41. It is difficult to appreciate how the High Court could casually

have suspended the execution of the sentence and granted bail to the

Respondent No.2 without recording any reasons, with the casual

observation of force in the argument made on behalf of the Appellant

before the High Court, that is, the Respondent No.2 herein. In effect,

at the stage of an application under
Section 389
of the CrPC, the High

Court found merit in the submission that the brother of the victim not

having been examined, the contention of the Respondent No.2, being

the Appellant before the High Court, that the amount of Rs.2,50,000/-
was taken as a loan was not refuted, ignoring the evidence relied

upon by the Sessions Court, including the oral evidence of the

victim’s parents.

42. 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 in our considered view, 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.

43. For the reasons discussed above, the appeal is allowed. 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.

................................J.
[ARUN MISHRA]

…..............................J.
[INDIRA BANERJEE]

NEW DELHI
AUGUST 14, 2020