BHARAT BHUSHAN & ANR.versusSTATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

                        [2013] 4 S.C.R. 230

A                  BHARAT BHUSHAN & ANR.
                             v.
                 STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH
                (Criminal Appeal No. 982 of 2007)

                         MARCH 12, 2013.
8
            [A.K. PATNAIK AND SUDHANSU JYOTI
                    MUKHOPADHAYA, JJ.]

        Penal Code, 1860 - ss. 3048 and 498A - Prosecution
C under - Of husband and his relatives - Conviction by courts
  below - Plea of accused-appellant Nos. 2 and 4 that they were
  living separately and hence act of cruelty cannot be attributed
  to them - Appeal confined to appellant Nos. 2 and 4 - Held:
  The case of the said appellants not covered either uls. 3048
D or uls. 498A - Act of cruelty or harassment against the
  deceased not established, hence the said appellants cannot
  be held guilty u/ss. 3048 and 498A.
       Prosecution ulss. 3048 and 498A IPC was initiated
E against accused alleging demand of dowry and treating
  the deceased with cruelty. Trial court convicted the
  accused persons. High Court confirmed the order of
  conviction holding that appellant Nos.2 and 4 though not
  residing with the deceased, were responsible for
  committing cruelty by keeping silent and by not coming
F to the rescue of the deceased. The present appeal is
  confined only to appellant Nos.2 and 4 as the Special
  Leave Petition qua the other two accused was dismissed.
        Allowing the appeal, the Court
G
         HELD: 1. The criminal liability uls. 3048 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,
H                               230
BHARAT BHUSHAN & ANR. v. STATE OF MADHYA              231
               PRADESH
unless such an act of cruelty or harassment is proved to     A
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 u/s. 3048 IPC. Similarly, Section
498A IPC provides that the act of cruelty to a woman by      B
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. [Para
7) [234-E-G]                                                 C
     2. The 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
guilty of the offences u/ss. 498A and 3048 IPC, is not D
correct. There might have been a demand of dowry by
the appellants at the time of marriage and it is quite
possible that the demand of dowry might 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 E
guilty of the offences u/ss. 3048 and 498A IPC. The act
of remaini!"g 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 3048 IPC. The act of remaining silent with regard F
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.
[Paras 6 and 8) [233-G-H; 234-A-C; 235-A-B]
                                                             G
    CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal
No. 982 of 2007.
    From the Judgment & Order dated 07.04.2006 of the High
Court of Madhya Pradesh at Jabalpur in Criminal Appeal No.
1225 of 2004.                                                H
    232       SUPREME COURT REPORTS                 [2013] 4 S.C.R.

A       Raghenth Basant, Goutam Khanzanchi, Senthil
    Jagadeesan for the Appellant.

          Vibha Datta Makhija for the Respondent.

          The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
B
         A.K. PATNAIK J. 1. 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 Xlllth
c   Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court), Jabalpur in
    Sessions Trial No. 671 of 2003 convicting the appellants under
    Sections 3048 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
D 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.

E      3. The facts very briefly are that Madhuri got married to
  appellant No. 1 at Jabalpur on 1Oth 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
F 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
G Section 3048 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
H
   BHARAT BHUSHAN & ANR. v. STATE OF MADHYA 233
           PRADESH [A.K. PATNAIK, J.]
  court has held on the basis of the evidence led by the A
  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 B
  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 3048 and 498A
  IPC.                                                       .

        5. In the appeal before the High Court, it was contented C
  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 D
~ 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 E ·
  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 F
  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 3048 of the Indian Penal
  Code.
                                                                    G
        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 3048 of the IPC. In the facts of this case, as found both by H
    234      SUPREME COURT REPORTS                [2013) 4 S.C.R.


A 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
8 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
c under Sections 3048 and 498A IPC.
        7. Section 3048 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
D 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 3048 IPC is attracted
E 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
F demand of dowry, the accused cannot be held to be liable for
  the offence of dowry death under Section 3048 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
G 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
H the settlement of the dowry on the ground that they belonged
 BHARAT BHUSHAN & ANR. v. STATE OF MADHYA 235
         PRADESH [A.K. PATNAIK, J.]
to the groom's family and remained silent. This act of remaining A
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 3048 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 B
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 arid direct that the. bail
bonds furnished by appellant nos. 2 and 4 will stand discharged.        C

K.K.T.                                            Appeal allowed.