Study with the several resources on Docsity
Earn points by helping other students or get them with a premium plan
Prepare for your exams
Study with the several resources on Docsity
Earn points to download
Earn points by helping other students or get them with a premium plan
Community
Ask the community for help and clear up your study doubts
Discover the best universities in your country according to Docsity users
Free resources
Download our free guides on studying techniques, anxiety management strategies, and thesis advice from Docsity tutors
Case law which tells about section 307 and 498a of ipc
Typology: Study Guides, Projects, Research
1 / 12
This page cannot be seen from the preview
Don't miss anything!
The Criminal Law (Second Amendment) Act of 1983 was made bearing in mind the number of dowry deaths that were on the rise in India. The cruelty caused by her husband and in-laws in the matrimonial home of the woman for more demand of dowry resulted in the suicides and dowry deaths in India. To eradicate this evil from the society, sections 498A and 304B in the Indian Penal Code, 1908 along with section 113B of the Evidence Act, 1872 were added through this amendment. However, even after three decades of the aforementioned amendment, the menace of dowry system in India prevails in large numbers. Time and again several cases of dowry death and cruelty have been reported and one such case is the present case at hand, Reema Aggarwal v. Anupam^1. This is a landmark case with respect to the interpretation of the word “husband” within the meaning of sections 498A and 304B, Indian Penal Code, 1908. FACTS OF THE CASE The petitioner and the respondent tied the knot on 25.01.1998. On 03.07.1998 the petitioner was admitted to the Tagore Hospital in Jalandhar for having forcibly consumed poisonous substance. The appellant was examined by the I.O to record her statement as follows: That she was harassed by her husband, mother-in-law, father-in-law and brother-in- law (respondent no.1,2,3 & 4 respectively) subsequent to her marriage to respondent no 1 for having brought insufficient dowry. She also disclosed that it was the second marriage of both the petitioner and the respondent. That they forced her to consume a poisonous acidic substance to end her life as a result of which she started vomiting and fell unconscious. The FIR and chargesheet was filed by the police after which charges were framed under section 307 and 498A of Indian Penal Code (IPC).The matter was heard by the Hon’ble trial court. The learned trial court ruled in favour of the accused persons and did not find them guilty. Subsequently a leave to appeal was filed by the state of Punjab before the division bench of the Punjab and Haryana High Court against the acquittal of the accused. However, the leave to appeal was declined and dismissed. In view of such dismissal, criminal revision petition was filed by the appellant which was also dismissed. Hence the present application before the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India. (^1) Reema Aggarwal v. Anupam , 2004 Cr LJ 892 (SC).
Section 498A, IPC This case has been a turning point in the many cases that have evolved 498A, IPC as a section to curb the very purpose it was enacted for. The offence under this section is a cognizable and non bailable offence, which means that a person accused of the offence of cruelty can be arrested without warrant upon a complaint received against him. This section was specifically enacted for the protection of women against any kind of cruelty caused by her husband or any relative of her husband. The objective of this section was to reduce crimes against women including harassment by in-laws of the woman in connection with dowry or otherwise. Section 498A explains cruelty under two sub clauses. Sub clause (a) of this section explains cruelty as mental or physical harassment. It enumerates cruelty as a ‘wilful conduct’ by the husband or the relative of the husband that is likely to cause or causes injury or danger to the life limb or health of the woman. Sub clause (b) explains cruelty as harassment to coerce the woman or her relative for meeting any ‘unlawful demand’ of property or valuable security. The legislature has taken into consideration the complete view of the present and future scenario of the domestic evil against women that takes place behind the four walls of her matrimonial home. The definition of cruelty under this section is broad and expansive and shows the intent of the legislature to curb the demand of dowry and harassment for insufficient or more dowry. Section 304B, IPC The Supreme Court has discussed at length the menace of dowry which is a result of the enactment of provisions like section 304B and 498A of IPC. For the longest time the practice of taking and giving dowry by the parents or guardian of the bride or the bridegroom has been an embedded and essential tradition of the Hindus, in other words dowry acts as a consideration for marriage without which the marriage of the bride was impossible. The Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 was specifically enacted to curb the ever increasing tradition of dowry cut across all religions and regions in India. The Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 defines dowry under section 2 of the Act as ‘any property or valuable security’ given or agreed to be given ‘at, before or after’ the marriage, as a consideration of marriage. Section 4 prohibits demand of dowry by the bride or bridegroom as a consideration of marriage. If these two sections are read together, it penalises the demand
of any property valuable security or money as a consideration of marriage. The intent of the legislature is clear to make not only the giving of dowry a punishable offence but the very demand of dowry as a punishable offence as a separate provision. The inclusion of the expression “as consideration of marriage” in the definition of dowry under Section 2 indicated that the aim of this legislation is to prohibit this social evil to be used as a ‘quid pro quo’ for marriage. Marriage is not a contract between two parties but a holy sacrament. It cannot be compared to and equivalent to the value of any property or money.The legislative intent behind enactment of this act is absolutely clear. This Act is a piece of social legislation to curb and reduce the threat of dowry encompassed on the livelihood of the lives of the families and society at large. Section 304B was introduced through the 1986 amendment of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. The legislature rightly decided to create a presumption of dowry death where the death of a woman is caused within seven years of marriage and if there exists evidence that soon before her death, she was subjected to cruelty or harassment by her husband or his relatives in connection with demand for dowry. The liability of the accused under this section is extended to cases where repeated demand for dowry by the husband or his family members puts an inadvertent pressure on the victim, leaving the woman with no choice but to commit suicide. This mental agony and frustration has been the result of the death of many women in India who succumb to the demands of her matrimonial home compelling her to end her life. The presumption under section 304B IPC is corroborated by Section 113B of the Evidence Act. These two section are read together in order to shift the burden on the accused to prove that the victim was not subjected to cruelty or harassment soon before her death in relation to demand for dowry. There is a long list of cases where the kin of the deceased have been brought to justice under section 304B. One such case is that of the State of Andhra Pradesh Vs. Raj Gopal Asawa and Anr^3 , where the accused was proved guilty beyond reasonable doubt under section 304B, IPC for driving the victim to commit suicide by subjecting her to cruelty and harassment in relation to demand of dowry soon before her death. It was observed in the case of Raja Lai Singh v. State of Jharkhand^4 , that the expression ‘soon before death’ appearing in the Section 304B, IPC is an elastic term. It can be referred (^3) State of Andhra Pradesh Vs. Raj Gopal Asawa andAnr , 2004 4 SCC 470. (^4) Raja Lai Singh v. State of Jharkhand, 2007 III Cr. L.J. 3262 (SC).
that once marriage in fact has been established, there would be a favourable presumption of marriage in law. In the case of Sastry Velaider v. Sembicutty^6 where there is evidence that a man and woman have lived together as husband and wife, until otherwise proved as contrary, the law will presume that they were living together in consequence of a valid marriage and not in a state of concubinage. Interpretation of statute: There are 4 main rules of interpretation that the courts rely on. These include the literal rule, mischief rule, golden rule and the harmonious rule interpretation. Through these rules the courts have been able to deliver fruitful judgments which make them landmark in the true spirit of law. It becomes imperative for the judiciary to interpret the law to understand the true object of the legislation in situations where injustice is caused. The judiciary has successfully tried to interpret the provisions in a way that is favourable to the parties to the matter and the society at large. In the present case the court felt the need to interpret the expression “husband” beyond its literal meaning to attain the object of curbing the social evil of dowry in the society. The Court laid emphasis on the purpose of enactment of the legislation. It was made to protect the women cruelty and dowry death and not to shelter the vey perpetrators that were responsible for this offence. It stated that is the language of a legislation is vague or imprecise then they cannot confine the meaning of the words or phrases to its literal interpretation. The Supreme Court placed reliance in several cases to emphasize on the need of interpretation of statute. In the case of Kehar Singh v. State (Delhi Admn. )^7 the Court stated that it is the paramount duty of the legislature to give a rational meaning to the words, sections and provisions where such words, sections or provisions are ambiguous, uncertain and dubious in nature. The court attempts to examine the act as a whole and the necessity behind the construction of the Act without separating any provisions from its legislative framework. Further, the provisions are read in such a manner so as to decipher the motive behind the Act so as to make a coherent and consistent interpretation of the provisions in question and to avoid any undesirable consequences. (^6) Sastry Velaider v. Sembicutty, 1881 (6) AC 686. (^7) Kehar Singh v. State (Delhi Admn.), AIR 1988 SC 1883
In the case of District Mining Officer v. Tata Iron & Steel Co,^8 this Court stated that the construction of an Act incorporates both literal and purposive approach. The court is mindful of deriving at the nexus between the meaning of the word and the purpose or object of the Act. This is important to understand the true and legal meaning of the words and provisions. In the case of Reserve Bank of India etc. v. Peerless General Finance and Investment Co. Ltd. and others^9 the court dealtwith the question of interpretation of a statute and observed that the basis of interpretation of any statute should be its ‘text’ and ‘context’. Theses are mutually dependent on each other for a rationale comprehension of the text as a whole and with respect to the context. When text is read in the light of the context from the eyes of the legislature we can understand why the legislation was enacted in the first place and can relate it to the context. However, when we read the text is read solely without involving the context a different meaning and view may appear. No part of a statute and no word of a statute can be construed in isolation. In Seaford Court Estates Ltd. v. Asher^10 , Lord Denning, advised to adopt a purposive approach to the interpretation of a word used in a statute and observed The English language is not an instrument of mathematical precision. Legislations are not defined with exact precision therefore judges cannot be expected to make decisions merely by literal interpretation of the language of the Act. So when any ambiguity or defect arises, the judges have to consider the social conditions which gave rise to it, the mischief which it was passed to remedy it, alongside the language of the legislation and thereafter supplement the written word. The judge must not remove or replace the material ingredients of which the Act is comprised of but should only “iron out the creases”. JUDGMENT AT A GLANCE The position of the Supreme court in the present case stood as under:
where is the eradicating social evil is in question. The court explained this through the case of Smt. Yamunabai Anantrao Adhav v. Anantrao Shivram Adhav and Anr ,^12 where the marriage of the woman was proved to be null and void under section 5 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. Sheclaimed right to maintenance, a civil right of the wife under section 125 of CRPC, 1973. However, it was rejected on the ground of not fulfillment of necessary conditions under section 5 of the Hindu Marriage Act,1955. The supreme court stated that the provisions and legislations that are specifically enacted to effectuate a public purpose must be read with realism and not merely on technical lines. A person cannot enter into a marital relationship or arrangement with the woman, harass her for dowry to fulfill his greed and then escape punishment under the pretext of calling the marriage as invalid in law. Such interpretation and approach towards these specific legislations would encourage harassment and destroy the purpose of their enactment. The court ruled and stated; “The expression “husband” covers a person who enters into a marital relationship and under the colour of such proclaimed or feigned status of husband subjects the woman concerned to cruelty in the manner provided under Section 498-A, whatever be the legitimacy of the marriage itself for the limited purpose of Section 498-A.”. The court further explained that even though the expression ‘husband’ would include those who cohabit with the woman and perform the role and status of the husband. Thus there exists no ground to exclude them from being covered under the purview of sections 498A, 304B of IPC. Including them would serve the legislative intent. SUGGESTIONS The Supreme Court’s interpretation of the word “husband” has succeeded in giving a new dimension to the section 498A and 304B of the IPC. This has helped to further women safety and left little scope for the perpetrators to escape. The impact of this judgment has broadened the scope of applicability of this section by making the husband liable irrespective the legitimacy of the marriage which is termed to be irrelevant. The Apex court has put a great deal of confidence in the applicability of this provision to further the protection of women in the society. However, the supreme court’s interpretation (^12) Smt. Yamunabai Anantrao Adhav v. Anantrao Shivram Adhav and Anr, AIR 1988 SC 644.
of the word “husband” within the meaning of Section 498A and 304B of IPC was applied ineffectivelyn a recent judgment of the Kerala High Court. In the case of Unnikrishnan v. State of Kerala^13 the married persons did not perform certain rites and ceremonies in order to be legally married and started living together as husband and wife. The court ruled that the parties were not married to each other in the eyes of law and were in a live in relationship. Thus an unfavourable judgement was passed, stating that a woman in a live-in relationship was not entitled to file a complaint under section 498A, IPC. This view of the high court subdues the importance of this judgment in the light of sections 498A and 304B IPC. The court suggested to include within the meaning of the word husband any person who proclaims or feigns himself to be the husband of the victim, perform the roles and duties of a husband, cohabits with the woman and harasses her so as to broaden the definition of husband and leave very little or no scope for the perpetrators of this crime. However, the Kerala High Court’s judgment defeats the very purpose of this liberal interpretation. Live in relationships are very much a marital arrangement that two people share. They share the same right and responsibilities as that of a husband and wife. Woman cohabiting in a live in relationship should have an equivalent protection under sections 498A and 304B as that given to a woman tied by a valid marriage. REFERENCES
