While over ruling the decision of the Hon’ble High Court, with respect to suspension of sentence, in the matter Preet Pal Singh vs. The State of Uttar Pradesh and Ors. MANU/SC/0591/2020
“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.
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.
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 Code of Criminal Procedure, 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.”