TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2020 (8) TMI 953
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....red to as the "Sessions Court" in Sessions Trial No. 1385 of 2010, for offences under Sections 304B, 498A and 406 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and Sections 3 and 4 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 co....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....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, 406 and 411 of the IPC and Sections 3 and 4 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 406 of IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, to which the accused pleaded not guilty and clai....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e 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 Responde....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ied 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 406 of the IPC and under Sections 3 and 4 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 c....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....as held by this Court in Kashmira Singh v. State of Punjab [(1977) 4 SCC 291] and Babu Singh and Ors. v. State of U.P. [(1978) 1 SCC 579] 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....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....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 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 fin....