Dowry and dowry-related crimes: India
This is a collection of articles archived for the excellence of their content. Readers will be able to edit existing articles and post new articles directly |
Contents |
From the archives of The Times of India 2010
Not all demands dowry-linked: HC
TIMES NEWS NETWORK
New Delhi: The Delhi High Court has held that a solitary demand not followed by any harassment of the wife doesn’t constitute a dowry demand and is not punishable under section 304 B of Indian Penal Code. Justice V K Jain gave the ruling while acquitting three members of a man’s family who had appealed against their conviction for dowry death.
The main allegation against the accused was that they had asked for Rs 50,000 from the victim’s family and sent her to her parental house to get it. After it failed to come across any persistence in the demand for the amount, HC clarified that just because a demand was made once after the wedding, it doesn’t automatically attract penal provisions related to dowry as it was not ‘‘referable to the marriage.’’
‘‘Demand for something which has not been agreed to be given at any time before or at the time of marriage and which isn’t in the contemplation of the boy or his family members and which is neither expected by them to be given in the marriage can’t be said to be connected with marriage,’’ justice Jain noted, emphasizing that a demand should be in connection to marriage for it to be covered under section 304 B.
Explaining ‘‘in connection with the marriage of the said parties’’ provided under Section 304-B of the IPC, the court said that it clearly excludes the demands that were not in connection with the marriage of the parties.
The judge further clarified that even if the victim was harassed with respect to one demand, if it wasn’t connected to marriage it would not attract 304 B. ‘‘It is difficult to accept that the demands which are not at all referable to the marriage would also constitute dowry demand, in case woman is subjected to cruelty or harassment in connection to such a demand,’’ he said.
However, the judge noted there are demands other than those covered under the definition of dowry which are made after the marriage and such demands do result in subjecting the girl to cruelty and harassment. He suggested the legislature change the law if these have to be dealt with under the IPC.
Earlier, the father and brother of the victim, Lovely, had alleged she committed suicide after being harassed for not bringing Rs 50,000. The trial court had in March 2005 sentenced the victim’s husband, Naresh Kumar Sharma, besides his father, mother and elder brother to seven years of imprisonment.
2012: Cases registered under the Dowry Prohibition Act
Andhra Pradesh tops list in dowry cases in 2012
PTI | Feb 21, 2014
NEW DELHI: Andhra Pradesh tops the list in Dowry cases with 2511 cases recorded in 2012 while Odisha was second with 1487 cases recorded under the Dowry Prohibition Act.
Madhya Pradesh was in the top of the list for domestic violence with 9,536 cases followed by Tamil Nadu which recorded 3,838 cases under the Domestic Violence Act 2005 in 2012 according to data from the National Crime Records Bureau (NCRB). Karnataka (1328), Bihar (1353) and Jharkhand (1066) also reported quite a large number of dowry cases while Andhra Pradesh reported 2150 cases of domestic violence for the year 2012.
The NCRB data shows an increasing trend of dowry and domestic violence cases in most of the states barring Arunachal Pradesh, Himachal Pradesh, Manipur, Meghalaya, Mizoram, Nagaland, Sikkim and Tripura which reported zero cases under the Dowry Prohibition Act, said the Women and Child Development Ministry in its reply to the Lok Sabha today.
Similarly, Uttar Pradesh, Chattisgarh, Pondicherry and Chandigarh reported zero cases of domestic violence.
Over all, a total 9038 cases under the Dowry Prohibition Act were registered in 2012 while 16309 cases under the Domestic Violence Act 2005 were registered in India for the same period.
2013
Jump in dowry arrests, not many convicted
Abhinav Garg New Delhi:
TNN
The Times of India Jul 07 2014
The Supreme Court judgment on the misuse of the anti-dowry law comes close on the heels of the latest National Crime Records Bureau figures that show a jump of 12.3% in arrests under Section 498A of Indian Penal Code since 2012.
The data in the 2013 NCRB crime statistics report vindicate the court's concerns that the penal provision meant to combat the menace of harassment of women by husband or in-laws is often being used as a “weapon rather than shield by disgruntled wives“. IPC 498A being a cognizable and nonbailable offence only worsens the plight of the accused.
Section 41 of Criminal Procedure Code lays down a ninepoint check list for police to weigh the need to arrest after examining the conduct of the accused, including possibility of absconding.
An analysis of NCRB reports of last three years show disturbing trends that obviously played on SC's mind when it came out with the recent guidelines. For one, more and more women are being arrested and charged under the section that is meant to protect women. Nearly 21-22% of those arrested by police for cruelty against a wife happen to be women themselves--they are either the husband's mother, sister or other female relatives.
Misuse of the law by some estranged wives
Misuse of the provision is also evident from the fact that the rate of chargesheeting by police hovers around 93-94% for all the three years while conviction rate by courts is a dismal low of 15-20%.
TOI spoke to lawyers and judges in Delhi who welcomed the apex court verdict terming it as a much needed safeguard against arbitrary arrest under IPC 498A. They also underlined that the SC judgment would have far-reaching consequences only if police and in vestigative agencies adhere to it instead of sidestepping the norms. The apex court has noted that police have “not come out of its colonial image. Despite six decades of Independence, it is largely considered as a tool of harassment, oppression and surely not considered a friend of public“.
A serving judge highlighted how a Delhi high court ruling that the DCP's nod is a must before arresting in-laws of a woman in a case of marital cruelty has been negated by police. “We have observed a trend where police have actively aided misuse of dowryand cruelty-related marital provisions.
Despite HC directives, certain police stations include 354 (outraging modesty) or causing injuries as additional sections in the FIR. Police then immediately lodge the FIR saying since it is not a simple case of 498A or 406 IPC, permission of DCP is not required.“
Advocate Prabhjit Jauhar said the SC verdict must be celebrated in today's scenario.
“On a daily basis I come across cases where estranged wives take recourse to filing FIRs under 498A. Since the courts have now become liberal in giving bail under this section, the new trend is to insert allegations of rape or attempt to rape to get FIRs registered under 376 IPC. Wives don't even hesitate in levelling allegations against the father-inlaw for sexual misconduct when there is no direct proof of the same. In these circumstances getting bail becomes very difficult and innocent persons have to undergo incarceration for 20 days to 4 months till they are granted regular bail. Courts are saddled with dockets of anticipatory or regular bails in these cases,“ he pointed out.
However, advocate Arvind Jain disagreed with the SC verdict. He drew attention to the overall conviction rate of roughly 26% and wondered on what basis the apex court could single out arrests under 498A as problematic.
“If law is a weapon, everybody is using it. You need to appreciate that all these dowryrelated crimes are committed within four walls of the house and seldom do women have sufficient evidence to prove in court. One needs to see the complete reality that law has not been able to prevent dowry harassment and deaths. The interpretation coming from SC appears to be insensitive towards women.“
