NEWS: [Section 304B IPC] Failure to file FIR Complaining Dowry & Harassment before Death of Victim is Inconsequential: Supreme Court

The Supreme Court of India stated while putting aside the order of the Allahabad High Court permitting bail to a man who was held guilty in a dowry death case that the FIR against dowry & harassment case is irrelevant if it is lodged after the death of the sufferer/victim.

The collapse/failure to lodge an FIR complaining of dowry & harassment before the death of the victim is irrelevant, observed the Supreme Court while putting aside the Allahabad High Court order that awarded bail to a man who was convicted in a dowry death case.

The Trial Court sentenced Sandeep Singh Hora for offenses by Sections 304B, 498A and 406 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) & Sec. 3 & Sec.4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961. He was accused under these terms as his wife died in circumstances that were not normal in about 8 & half months of their marriage.

In appeal before the High Court, he argued that the There was no FIR recorded in dowry and harassment case before the demise of the victim, he took 2,50,00/- as finance not as dowry from his brother in law, in the autopsy report it is apparent that the victim has done suicide. After these offers before the court, the High Court approved a nonspeaking order which permits bail to him.

While letting the appeal lodged by the father of the dead, the bench comprising Justices Arun Mishra & Indira Banerjee remarked thus:

From the testimony of the Prosecution observers, it emerges that the Appellant had spent cash beyond his financial capacity, at the marriage of the victim & had yet gifted an I-10 car. The luckless parents were eager against hope that there would be an agreeable settlement. Even as late as on 17.6.2010, the brother of the object paid Rs.2,50,000/- to the Respondent No.2. The malfunction to file an FIR criticism of dowry & harassment before the death of the victim, is in our deemed view, insignificant. The parents & other family supporters of the victim definitely would not need to lead to a complete collapse of the marriage by filing an FIR against the Respondent No.2 & his parents, while the victim was successful. The court also noted that, in considering a request for a delay of the sentence, the Appellate Court is only to consider if there is such patent sickness in the order of sentence that makes the order of conviction prima facie incorrect.

Where there is proof that has been deemed by the Trial Court, it is not wide open to a Court contemplating application under Section 389 to re-evaluate and re-examine the same proof and take a distinct view, to postpone the implementation of the sentence & publish the convict on bail.
There should be strong persuasive reasons for the grant of bail, despite an order of imprisonment, by the suspension of sentence,& this strong & convincing reason must be documented in the order giving bail, as required in Section 389(1) of the Cr.P.C.

As the will under Section 389(1) is to be trained judicially, the Supreme Court is compelled to consider whether any forceful ground has been revealed, giving rise to considerable qualms about the cogency of the conviction & whether there is the probability of unreasonable delay in the removal of the appeal.

While letting the appeal, the bench noted that the statutory intent of combining Section 304B was to curb the threat of dowry death with a firm hand &, therefore, while dealing with these cases in Section 304B, this judicial intent has to be kept in mind. It included:

Once there is information to show that the sufferer was exposed to cruelty/harassment before death, there is a belief of dowry death & the onus is on the alleged in-laws to show if not. At the cost of reiteration, it is repeated that death, in this case, got a place within 8 and a half months of the wedding. There is evidence of harassment of the sufferer for dowry even on the date of her death, and there is also proof of payment of a sum of Rs.2,50,000/- to the Respondent-Accused with the victim’s brother, 2 months before her death.

Putting aside the High Court order, the bench ordered the accused to surrender.