BHARAT BHUSHAN & ANR. versus STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

Citation: [2013] 4 S.C.R. 230 · Decided: 12-03-2013 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: A.K. PATNAIK · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

A 
8 
[2013] 4 S.C.R. 230 
BHARAT BHUSHAN & ANR. 
v. 
STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH 
(Criminal Appeal No. 982 of 2007) 
MARCH 12, 2013. 
[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. 
G 
H 
Allowing the appeal, the Court 
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, 
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 
B 
Jagadeesan for the Appellant. 
Vibha Datta Makhija for the Respondent. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
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 1 Oth June, 2003 and she came 
to the ho
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.