BHARAT BHUSHAN Vs STATE OF M.P
Bench: A.K. PATNAIK,SUDHANSU JYOTI MUKHOPADHAYA
Case number: Crl.A. No.-000982-000982 / 2007
Diary number: 17108 / 2006
Advocates: SENTHIL JAGADEESAN Vs
Page 1
Crl.A. No. 982 of 2007 REPORTABLE 1
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 982 OF 2007
BHARAT BHUSHAN & ANR. ..... APPELLANTS
VERSUS
STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH ..... RESPONDENT
J U D G M E N T
A.K. PATNAIK J.
This is an appeal against the judgment dated 7th
April, 2006 of the Madhya Pradesh High Court,
Jabalpur Bench in Criminal Appeal No. 1225 of 2004 by
which the High Court has maintained the judgment of
the XIIIth Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track
Court), Jabalpur in Sessions Trial No. 671 of 2003
convicting the appellants under Sections 304B and
498A of the Indian Penal Code.
2. On 12th February, 2007, this Court dismissed
the petition for special leave to appeal qua
petitions Nos. 1 and 3 and issued notice confined to
appellant nos. 2 and 4 and on 18th October, 2007, this
Court had also granted bail to the said two
appellants. Hence this appeal is confined to the
appeal of appellant Nos. 2 and 4.
Page 2
Crl.A. No. 982 of 2007 REPORTABLE 2
3. The facts very briefly are that Madhuri got
married to appellant No. 1 at Jabalpur on 10th June,
2003 and she came to the house of her parents on 5th
August, 2003. In the house of her parents, she
committed suicide by hanging to the ceiling on 17th
August, 2003. The father of the deceased lodged a
report with the Police on 17th August, 2003, saying
that he had brought his daughter to the house on 5th
August, 2003 and she was not sent back to her in-
laws' house on account of the illness of his wife
and she committed suicide. The Police investigated
the case and filed a charge sheet against the
appellants under Section 304B and 498A of the Indian
Penal Code. The trial court convicted the appellants
and the High Court has maintained the conviction.
4. We have heard learned counsel for the
appellants and learned counsel for the State at
length and we find that the trial court has held on
the basis of the evidence led by the prosecution
witnesses that appellant Nos. 2 and 4 along with
appellant No.1 demanded colour TV, `50,000/- in cash
and a Hero Honda Motor Cycle towards dowry at the
time of marriage and just after one day of the
marriage did not supply proper meal even to the
deceased and, accordingly, held that this was an act
of cruelty towards the newly married bride and the
appellant Nos. 2 and 4 along with the appellant Nos.
Page 3
Crl.A. No. 982 of 2007 REPORTABLE 3
1 and 3 were jointly and directly liable under
Sections 304B and 498A IPC.
5. In the appeal before the High Court, it was
contented on behalf of appellant nos. 2 and 4 that
they were living separately and as such no act of
cruelty or harassment towards the deceased could be
attributed to them. The High Court, however, held
that the deceased who was a newly wedded girl would
certainly be in a mental agony when her parents were
making efforts to call appellant Nos. 2 and 4 along
with the other appellants to come and settle the
dispute with regard to the dowry and yet the
appellants refused to go and settle the matter merely
on the ground that they were from the groom's side.
The High Court further held that such conduct of the
appellant Nos. 2 and 4 would certainly be an act of
cruelty and would also result in mental distress to
a newly married girl who was married just two months
before committing suicide. The High Court was of the
opinion that appellant Nos. 2 and 4 in keeping
silence and in not coming to the rescue of the
deceased committed cruelty even though they had not
caused any physical cruelty to the deceased and were
liable for the offences under Section 498A and 304B
of the Indian Penal Code.
6. We are unable to agree with this opinion of the
High Court that by keeping silence and by not coming
Page 4
Crl.A. No. 982 of 2007 REPORTABLE 4
forward to settle the dispute with regard to the
dowry, the appellant Nos. 2 and 4 were are guilty of
the offences under Sections 498A and 304B of the IPC.
In the facts of this case, as found both by the trial
court and by the High Court, the deceased got married
to the appellant No. 1 on 10th June, 2003 and she went
back to the house of the appellants on 5th August,
2003 and committed suicide on 17th August, 2003 while
she was in the house of her parents. True, there
may have been a demand of dowry by the appellants at
the time of marriage and it is quite possible that
the demand of dowry may have persisted even after the
marriage but unless it is established that the
appellant Nos. 2 and 4 committed some act of cruelty
or harassment towards a woman, they cannot be held
guilty of the offences under Sections 304B and 498A
IPC.
7. Section 304B IPC provides that where the death
of a woman is caused by any burns or bodily injury or
occurs otherwise than under normal circumstances
within seven years of her marriage and it is shown
that soon before her death she was subjected to
cruelty or harassment by her husband or any relative
of her husband, or in connection with, any demand for
dowry, such death shall be called 'dowry death' and
such husband or relative shall be deemed to have
caused her death. Hence the criminal liability under
Page 5
Crl.A. No. 982 of 2007 REPORTABLE 5
Section 304B IPC is attracted not just by the demand
of dowry but by the act of cruelty or harassment by
the husband or any relative of her husband in
connection with such demand; thus, unless such an act
of cruelty or harassment is proved to have been
caused by the accused to the deceased soon before her
death in connection with the demand of dowry, the
accused cannot be held to be liable for the offence
of dowry death under Section 304B IPC. Similarly,
Section 498A IPC provides that the act of cruelty to
a woman by her husband or his relative would be
punishable and would be attracted only if the husband
or his relative commits an act of cruelty within the
meaning of clauses (a) and (b) in the Explanation to
Section 498A IPC.
8. In this case, the finding of the High Court is
that the appellant Nos. 2 and 4 did not come forward
to participate in the settlement of the dowry on the
ground that they belonged to the groom's family and
remained silent. This act of remaining silent cannot
be by any stretch of imagination construed to be an
act of cruelty or harassment towards the deceased
within the meaning of Section 304B IPC. The act of
remaining silent with regard to the settlement of
the dowry demand will also not amount to cruelty
within the meaning of either clause (a) or clause (b)
of the Explanation of Section 498A IPC.
Page 6
Crl.A. No. 982 of 2007 REPORTABLE 6
9. In the result, we allow this appeal of
appellant Nos. 2 and 4 and set aside the impugned
judgment of the High Court as well as the judgment of
the trial court and direct that the bail bonds
furnished by appellant nos. 2 and 4 will stand
discharged.
............................J [A.K. PATNAIK]
............................J [SUDHANSU JYOTI MUKHOPADHAYA]
NEW DELHI MARCH 12, 2013.