Section 498a of IPC deals with non-bailable offence, which applies to a husband, or relative(s) of a husband, of a woman, who is/are subjecting women to cruelty.
Section 498a read under the IPC as:
Whoever, being the husband or the relative of the husband of a woman, subjects such woman to cruelty shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to three years and shall also be liable to fine. Explanation.—For the purpose of this section, “cruelty” means—
any wilful conduct which is of such a nature as is likely to drive the woman to commit suicide or to cause grave injury or danger to life, limb or health (whether mental or physical) of the woman; or
harassment of the woman where such harassment is with a view to coercing her or any person related to her to meet any unlawful demand for any property or valuable security or is on account of failure by her or any person related to her to meet such demand.
It was introduced in the code by the Criminal Law Amendment Act, 1983 (Act 46 of 1983). By the same Act section 113-A of has been added to the Indian Evidence Act to raise presumption regarding abetment of suicide by married woman.
Since the start of our human race, mindset of the society in which we dwell has grown in manner where a profound perception has been established that is ‘man is a criminal’ irrespective of whether he is at fault or not and women have been given the status of being ‘Innocent.’ Dowry and domestic violence cases in our society has become very common nowadays and every time we hear about someone being accused of this, we start believing that the man must have been at fault unless otherwise the man has been a close relative or part of family.
This law has been made with the motive of welfare of women. If wife/daughter-in-law who’s demands are not met makes a written false complaint of dowry harassment to a nearby police station then husband, his old parents and relatives are immediately arrested without sufficient investigation and put behind bars on a non-bailable terms. Even if the complaint is false, one shall be presumed guilty until you prove that you are innocent. This section of Ipc is non-bailable in nature and only court can grant bail when bail-bond requirements are met.
Meaning and scope of cruelty
Held in ‘Kaliyaperumal vs. State of Tamil Nadu’, that cruelty is a common essential in offences under both the sections 304B and 498A of IPC. The two sections are not one and the same but both are distinct offences and persons acquitted under section 304B for the offence of dowry death can be convicted for an offence under sec.498A of Ipc. Kinds of cruelty covered under this section includes following:
(a) Cruelty by vexatious litigation
(b) Cruelty by deprivation and wasteful habits
(c) Cruelty by persistent demand
(d) Cruelty by extra-marital relations
(e) Harassment for non-dowry demand
(f) Cruelty by non-acceptance of baby girl
(g) Cruelty by false attacks on chastity
(h) Taking away children
Constitution Validity of Section 498-A
In ‘Inder Raj Malik and others vs. Mrs. Sumita Malik’, it was contended that this section is ultra vires of Article 14 and Article 20 (2) of the Constitution. Dowry prohibition act is available which also deals with similar types of cases; therefore, both statutes create a situation of Double jeopardy. Section 498-A is distinguishable from section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act because in the latter mere demand of dowry is punishable and existence of element of cruelty is not necessary, whereas section 498-A is more advanced form. It punishes such demands of property or assets from the wife or her relatives said to be coupled with cruelty to her. Hence a person can be prosecuted in respect of both the offences punishable under section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act and this section.
Misuse of this section
According to the National Crime Records Bureau report titled ‘Crime in India’, the number of cases being filed under Sec 498A of IPC between 2007 and 2013, was on the rise, roughly a 10% rise. Number of cases pending trial was around 2.67 lakh at the beginning of 2007. This number increased to 4.66 lakh at the beginning of 2013, a rise of almost 75%, the conviction rate of cases under Sec 498A was 21% in 2007 and dropped to 16% in 2013. While the average conviction rate in other IPC crimes remained more or less at 40% .the rate of charge-sheet filing for the year 2012, under Section 498A IPC was at an exponential height of 93.6% while the conviction rate was at a staggering low at 14.4% only.
In other words, the conviction rate in cases under 498A is less than half of the average conviction rate for all other IPC crimes.
Kanaraj vs. State of Punjab, the apex court observed as:
“for the fault of the husband the in-laws or other relatives cannot in all cases be held to be involved. The acts attributed to such persons have to be proved beyond reasonable doubt and they cannot be held responsible by mere conjectures and implications. The tendency to rope in relatives of the husband as accused has to be curbed”
New developments
On July 27, 2017 in the case of Rajesh sharma & Ors. v. State of UP and Anr, the Supreme Court passed a directive to police and magistrates that there would be no automatic arrests or coercive actions arising out of complaints lodged under section 498A without extracting the authenticity of the complaints. A bench consisting of justices UU Lalit and AK Goel stated that there was a growing pattern of cases wherein the women were abusing the legal provision to implicate their husbands and his relatives — parents, minor children, grandparents and siblings. The bench stated that there was ‘‘violation of human rights of innocents’’.
In a very recent move taken by Supreme court to curb the misuse of section 498a it directed to set up family welfare committee in all districts under the National Legal Services Authority. Members can be appointed from the paralegal volunteers, social workers, retired persons, “ wives of working officers ” and other citizens. Under this rule, every complaint filed under police or the magistrate will be passed on to the local committee, which will enquire about the authenticity of the complaint and file a report with a police official or magistrate within one month.
The Court and Legislature have to make changes if the laws of matrimonial cruelty are to be of any deterrence. Laws are being misused to settle personal bills. But still, the scenario is the same. In the judgment in the case of Sushil kumar v. Union of India, the Supreme Court also termed the misuse of Section 498A as ‘legal terrorism’
Mahila mandal as we hear this name are for so-called women’s empowerment. They conduct candle-light marches, agitations, debates on channels for so-called women’s empowerment. Politicians also support them, as they can be potential vote seekers for them. They never care for those falsely trapped in cases, and never advocate for punishment for false cases. I understand that the fear of punishment will decrease the charm of these biased laws, and it will be a great loss to the industry. In this era of women empowerment, all women are portrayed as “abla nari ” who can never commit a crime. These organizations should investigate complaint properly without any bias towards the woman keeping in mind that the law is being misused largely to harass more women in husband’s family.
Gender neutrality should be given concern. Every person should have equal rights and similar laws should be made to protect the interest of men also, so that they are not mentally harassed and tortured.
If allegations made regarding commission of offence under section 498a IPC are trivial in nature, stringent action should be taken against persons making the allegations. This would discourage persons from coming to courts with unclean hands.
Family Counseling Centre’s should be set up which can really help these harassed men and his family members, to listen their side of the story and settle the issue peacefully without undergoing court procedures.
It is to be noted that the role of the investigating agencies and the courts is that of watch dog and not of a bloodhound. It should be their effort to see that an innocent person is not made to suffer on account of unfounded, baseless and malicious allegations. It is equally undisputable that in many cases no direct evidence is available and the courts have to act on circumstantial evidence. While dealing with such cases, the law laid down relating to circumstantial evidence has to be kept in view.”
No comments:
Post a Comment