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.