Supreme Court of India

Bharat Bhushan & Anr vs State Of M.P on 12 March, 2013

Equivalent citations: AIRONLINE 2013 SC 359, 2014 (13) SCC 525, (2013) 125 ALLINDCAS 270, (2013) 1 HINDULR 595, (2013) 2 ALLCRILR 499, (2013) 2 ALLCRIR 1955, (2013) 2 BOMCR(CRI) 743, (2013) 2 CHANDCRIC 169, (2013) 2 CURCRIR 241, (2013) 2 DLT(CRL) 217, (2013) 2 RECCRIR 444, (2013) 4 SCALE 524, (2013) 55 OCR 195, (2013) 81 ALLCRIC 907, 2013 CALCRILR 2 803, 2013 CRILR(SC MAH GUJ) 996, 2013 CRILR(SC&MP) 996, (2014) 1 DMC 582

Author:
A.K. Patnaik

Bench:
Sudhansu Jyoti Mukhopadhaya
,
A.K. Patnaik

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.

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. 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 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
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.

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.