Cruelty Against Women’
Overview
Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, one of the significant anti-dowry laws in India, was enacted on 26 December 1983 as a response to the rampantly growing cases of cruelty and violence against married women. It was implemented as a regulatory mechanism for safeguarding women from being subjected to cruelty and dowry-related harassment by their respective husbands and their husbands’ family members and relatives by making the perpetration of such actions a criminal offence. The term “cruelty” in this provision has been given a broad scope of meaning to protect women from all the varied forms of abuse and torture. This law has also been subject to the controversy because it is “anti-male” legislation due to the insurgence of false and exaggerated allegations being made by displeased wives to exact revenge from their husbands and his kin. The Supreme Court observed that it is being misused “as a weapon rather than shield by disgruntled wives” which is diminishing its real credibility and leading to “legal terrorism”.
In this article, we shall gain an in-depth and insightful understanding of the provision of Section 498A as provided in the IPC and its various facets, and we shall also go on to analyse whether it is genuinely being misused or not.
Understanding Section 498A & Allied Provisions
Section 498A of the IPC – ‘Husband or relative of husband of a woman subjecting her to cruelty’ – states that, “Whoever, being the husband or the relative of the husband of a woman, subjects such a woman to cruelty shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to 3 years and shall also be liable to fine”. Infliction of cruelty and harassment by the accused must be proved beyond all reasonable doubts with proper evidence because all harassment does not tantamount to “cruelty” as given under Section 498A.
In-State of A.P. v. M. Madhusudhan Rao (2008) it was held that harassment cannot be treated as cruelty unconditionally. Only when harassment is done to coerce a woman or any person related to her to meet any unlawful demands, can it invite penal consequences under Section 498A. In G. V. Siddaramesh v. the State of Karnataka (2010) the Court noted that the term “cruelty” is a relative term and cannot be assigned one universal definition, what classifies as cruelty for one person may not necessarily be classified as cruelty by another person. InGananath Pattnaik v. the State of Orissa (2002), the Court held that the concept of cruelty also varies from person-to-person based on their social and economic status.
This Section gives a new dimension to the meaning of “cruelty”, which is –
(1) Any willful 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.
In support of this point, the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 was also amended to include Section 113A – ‘Presumption as to abetment of suicide by a married woman’ – which states that, “When the question is whether the commission of suicide by a woman had been abetted by her husband or any relative of her husband and it is shown that she had committed suicide within seven years from the date of her marriage and that her husband or such relative of her husband had subjected her to cruelty, the Court may presume, having regard to all the other circumstances of the case, that such suicide had been abetted by her husband or by such relative of her husband” (“cruelty” in this Section shall have the same meaning as that provided in Section 498A of IPC).
(2) Harassment of the woman where such harassment is done with a view into 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.
This point is allied with Section 113B of the Evidence Act – ‘Presumption as to dowry death’ – When the question is whether a person has committed the dowry death of a woman. It is shown that soon before her death, such woman has been subjected by such person to cruelty or harassment for, or in connection with, any demand for dowry. The Court shall assume that such a person has caused dowry death (the definition and meaning of “dowry death” shall remain the same as that given under Section 304B of IPC).
Another one of the allied provisions is that of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, which has been enacted to provide a remedy to women subject to domestic violence under civil law. In Juveria Abdul Majid Patni v. Atif Iqbal Mansoori (2014) it was seen that if a case under Section 498A is pending in a criminal court, then the prosecution has the option to opt for reliefs under Sections 18 to 22 and interim relief under Section 23 of this Act.
Section 306 of IPC – ‘Abetment of suicide’ – is also of significance when trying a person under Section 498A. It states that – “If any person commits suicide, whoever abets the commission of such suicide, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to 10 years, and shall also be liable to fine”. For this, the prosecution must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the husband provoked, incited or induced the wife to commit suicide. This was analysed in Pinakin Mahipatray Rawal v. State of Gujarat (2013).
Some other notable judgements are – In Gurcharan Singh v. State of Punjab (2017), it was held that proof of the ‘wilful conduct’ which prompts a woman to commit suicide or cause grave injury or danger to her life, limb or health, whether mental or physical, is the absolute requirement for proving cruelty by the accused. In-State of West Bengal v. Orilal Jaiswal (1994), the Court observed that before charging the accused of guilt, it must also be proved that the deceased woman in question was not hypersensitive.
Other Facets of Section 498A
Since offences under Section 498A are too grave and severe, they are classified as cognisable (police can arrest accused without a warrant); non-compoundable (offences in which complaint cannot be withdrawn), except in the state of Andhra Pradesh wherein it has been deemed as a compoundable offence; and non-bailable (wherein bail is a privilege that can be granted only at the Court’s discretion).
From the statement of Section 498A, it can be noted that its essential ingredients required to invoke this Section are –
1] The aggrieved woman must be married;
2] She must be subjected to mistreatment amounting to cruelty or harassment;
3] The infliction of such cruelty or harassment must be done by the husband of the woman or the relative of her husband (the extent of the meaning of the term “relative of her husband” was laid down in the case of U. Suvetha v. State by Insp. of Police & Anr (2009), it was noted that a ‘girlfriend’ or a ‘concubine’ could not be considered as a relative of the husband).
An aggrieved woman, or any relative of hers by blood, marriage or adoption, and if there is no such relative than any public servant as notified by the state government, may file a complaint under this Section. However, as held in Unnikrishnan v. State of Kerala (2017), a woman in a live-in relationship cannot file a complaint under Section 498A, as we have seen above that the primary ingredient to invoke this Section requires for the aggrieved woman to be married.
Under Section 198A of CrPC, the Court may take cognisance of such an offence based on this complaint or upon a police report of facts which constitutes such an offence. As per Section 468 of CrPC, a complaint alleging the commission of such a crime can only be filed under a period of limitation of 3 years. This rule has been relaxed under Section 473 of CrPC, which allows the Court to take cognisance of such an offence if it believes that it is necessary to do so in the interest of justice. Moreover, in Arun Vyas v. Anita Vyas (1999), it was held that the essence of Section 498A is “cruelty”, which is a continuing offence, so every instance on which she was subjected to cruelty will be treated as a new starting point for the period of limitation.
“Legal Terrorism” & Section 498A: Is the law being misused?
The idea of this provision was to combat and curb the menace of dowry-related harassment and cruelty against women. However, on closer examination of the cases related to this law, it was revealed that the number of convictions is far lesser than the number of acquittals. Even if the accused is let free from being punished in the eyes of the law, he is still forever condemned in the eyes of society. This has highlighted the growing concern of misuse of this law by “discontented” wives to seek revenge on their husbands and his family and as a result, its diminishing credibility. In Onkar Nath Mishra v. State (NCT of Delhi) (2008), the Court held that the motive of Section 498A is solely to combat the menace of dowry deaths, cruelty and harassment faced by helpless women who are at the mercy of their husbands and his relatives, nonetheless, the law cannot be used as a means to achieve oblique motives.
The Judiciary has also now taken cognisance of this issue and deemed this law to be turning into an anti-male statute. It was seen that the misuse of this provision is unleashing legal terrorism, and the idea of it is straying away from its intended use, in Sushil Kumar Sharma v. Union of India (2005), the Court held that the mere probability of abuse of a legal provision does not make it invalid. Thus, the law is very much constitutional as some bad apples cannot be allowed to spoil an entire basket of real, legitimate cases of cruelty. Scrapping the law can prove to be extraordinarily prejudicial and unfair to the victims going through such abuse. It must be considered that taking a considerable step such as approaching the Court with such serious allegations against one’s husband by a wife can also be because of running out of all other options and a desperation to get remedy. The wife is also putting a lot at risk when doing so, and these probabilities cannot be overlooked. However, the loopholes in the law need to work on. There is no reliable or legitimate data or study on which the extent of its misuse can be known. Let us see if we can draw an inference on the same based on some statistical data.
According to the National Crime Record Bureau’s (NCRB) All India Crime Data, it has been observed that cases registered under Section 498A seem to be on the rise with every passing year, accounting for almost 27.3% for crimes against women in 2018. Still, the conviction rates for the same seem to be falling. The conviction rate of crimes under Section 498A in 2018 is found to be 1/4th of that of total conviction rate of crimes under IPC. The quality of charge-sheeting under Section 498A is as high as 93.6%, whereas the rate of conviction is at a staggering low of only about 15%.
Former Additional Advocate General of the Supreme Court, Rajinder Goyal, has observed that about 80% of dowry cases in India end in acquittal. For example, in the year 2016, 44,681 cases under Section 498A completed the trial process, out of which, in only 5,433 cases the accused was convicted, in 39,248 cases, the accused was acquitted. In 8,437 cases the complaint was withdrawn, which amounts to a conviction rate of a mere 12.2%, the lowest among all IPC sections.
The rate has witnessed a continuous drop, from 21.9% in 2006 to 13% in 2018. According to the NCRB, between 2006-2016, “for every case that resulted in a conviction, five other cases resulted in acquittal, and one case was withdrawn with the net result being that only one out of every seven cases resulted in conviction”. Roughly, there is a 10% rise in the number of pending cases per year. In a span of 13 years (2006-2018), the number of pending cases have more than doubled and increased by a shocking 161%, and the number of cases withdrawn has increased by 70%. Such an alarming fall in the rate of conviction and such unusual data needs to undergo immediate scrutiny and profound analysis by the learned Judiciary.
The fact that the law can be invoked only by the woman and her relatives has been viewed as a demerit. The drop in conviction rates has been assumed to be as a result of non-bona fide and frivolous cases filed by wives wanting to harass their husbands and his family, although there is no proof to back that argument. The false claims have not been thoroughly analysed, and there are no records of action being taken against the authorities or the complainant for filing frivolous cases.
In the case of Saritha v. Ramachandran (2003), the Supreme Court (S.C.) observed that this provision is being misused by some married women to harass their spouse. It also recognised the need to make this a bailable and non-cognisable offence so that the husband can be allowed a fair chance to avail for some course of action, especially if the case is false. In Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar & Anr (2014), S.C., in a bid to ensure that police officer do not unnecessarily and casually, with mechanical accordance to the law, arrest the husband and his relatives, issued specific directions to be followed to prevent the same and scrapped the automatic arrests rule.
In-State v. Srikanth (2002), The Karnataka H.C observed, that the cases in which the family members of the husband get caught without reason need to curb. It held that unless there is evidence proving the involvement of a relative in the crime, the police cannot declare the kin as accused. In Kanaraj v. State of Punjab (2000), the similar observation was made by the Court, and it was held that the guilt of the arrested family members must be proved beyond a reasonable doubt before labelling them as accused.
In Rajesh Sharma & Ors v. State of U.P. & Anr (2017) S.C. issued directions to prevent misuse of Section 498A which were re-analysed in Social Action Forum for Madhav Madhikar & Another (2018) where it was noted that the establishment of Family Welfare Committees, as directed in the former case, which was responsible for initiating the process of arrest according to the reports filed with them under this Section, are not covered under IPC and are a third party agency, and so this power conferred upon them was regarded as impermissible and extra-judicial. Thus, S.C. re-considered its directions issued in the Rajesh Sharma case and maintained only those which complied with the IPC. The Court has directed that the investigating officer-in-charge in cases of Section 498A must duly adhere to the guidelines laid down in various landmark cases such as D. K. Basu v. State of West Bengal (1997), Joginder Kumar v. the State of U.P. (1994), Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar & Anr (2014).
Even after all these judgements, statistics, analysis and assumptions, there is still no concrete evidence to prove that the law is being misused and the data remains to be insufficient in drawing a valid conclusion with regards to the same.
Inference & Suggestions
It is quite evident that the data trends point out some error in the implementation of the law. While it is being taken into cognisance that the law is being misused for some ulterior, malicious motives by unhappy wives for whatever reasons due to high rate of acquittals, the rise in the number of cases also cannot be ignored, and it proves that there is an imminent need for this provision. This is a complex and highly debatable topic. Still, in my view, this offence is difficult to prove in Court as the crime takes place within the four walls of a home and so there are next to no eyewitnesses for the same other than the family members of the husband, who cannot be relied upon as they may be given the benefit of the doubt to cover up for their blood relation, and also the social stigma revolving around this matter, which might be preventing women from filing cases or may force them to withdraw the filed ones as well.
The high charge-sheeting rates point out the fact that prima facie evidence supporting the wife’s claim is available in most cases, such as bodily injuries in case of physical and sexual abuse. However, proving mental abuse and its degree of relevancy under the law is yet another debatable issue (refer to the case ofPinakin Mahipatray Rawal v. the State of Gujarat, 2013, wherein the accused was let free of the charge of driving his wife to commit suicide due to his extramarital affair causing her severe mental trauma). The fact that the law allows for the relatives of the husband to also be arrested if necessary seems because if found not guilty, they can easily be let off the hook. Still, naturally, they will be suspected as being partners in crime or eyewitnesses of the crime as they are the closest to the husband and may even live under the same roof as the woman and her husband. In most cases, it has been found that the husband and his family collectively inflict perpetration of cruelty and harassment upon the wife.
The lack of evidence of substantial value can also be corresponded to the incompetence on the part of the police to gather proof and conduct a thorough investigation. Charge-sheeting is done in approx. 94% of the cases, which means prima facie evidence exists, but the inability to secure convictions can be attributed to gaps in investigation. The scenario in our country is that a lot of the times, violence perpetrated by husband against the wife is normalised and at times, even glorified. It is observed that the wife brought it upon herself to be abused, and she deserves to be subjected to the same as she may have committed a wrong. So the wife grows to submit to these illogical beliefs and condones herself to these satanic practices. Many women blame themselves for the abuse and believe that the husband is their master and has a right to beat them (National Family Health Survey 2, 1998-99). Due to such arbitrary beliefs, the cases under this Section are not given much priority, because of which much of the valuable evidence and witnesses are lost.
Practically speaking, any law can be misused, and the same can be curbed if the law enforcing agencies do their job well. Singling out this particular Section and alleging it to be unconstitutional because it is misused is of no substance and in complete disregard of the reality of the condition of women in India and the patriarchal outlook of our society that condemns women for the violence done against them. The argument is so far baseless and displays sheer lack of understanding and ignorance. Also, in a country like ours, where the judicial process is prolonged, one usually refrains from seeking legal aid unless the matter gets out of hand, and that must be kept in mind.
Section 498A has been harshly drafted for a reason. The classification of the offence under it must continue to have the same status (cognisable, non-bailable, non-compoundable) as otherwise, it may lose its bearings and the whole purpose of the law will be defeated. The law is pro-woman, not anti-male, the two are mutually exclusive. There is a severe need to impart gender sensitisation training to the police as well as the Judiciary to change their conduct and contemptuous attitude towards women, viewing women as hypersensitive and their complaints as mere rebellious tantrums. The offence needs to be regarded with the seriousness that it deserves. Police must be well trained and must responsibly carry out their duty and conduct an effective investigation in such cases. The meaning of the term “cruelty” needs to be framed less vaguely to ensure that the accused is not let free just because the evidence might lack value due to the ambiguity in the meaning of the statement; the meaning of mental harassment also needs to be well-defined and quoted under the law. The law must be clear-cut, almost similarly well-interpreted by all. Trials should also be assigned specific periods, so that proper investigation and procurement of evidence and witnesses can be timely done.
Article by- Arya Nanal; BA LLB ( hons.), ILS Law College, Pune.
Editor- Vanshika Gaba; BBA LLB ( hons.), FIMT- School of Law, GGSIPU, Kapashera, New Delhi.
Disclaimer: Every single effort has been made to maintain the accuracy of this publication at the time it was written by the Author. The article does not intent to provide any kind of legal advice or claim a guaranteed outcome and the law which has been mentioned may have changed since the publication. Readers considering legal action should consult with an experienced professional lawyer to understand the current laws and how they are in a position to affect the case. For any specific technical or legal advice on the information provided in the Article/blog, please contact the author.
REFERENCES USED:
1] The SCC Online Blog – Cruelty to women [S.498A IPC and allied sections]
2] B&B Associated LLP – 498A Use and Misuse
3] The Criminal Law Blog, NLU Jodhpur – Unbridled power in hands of married women: A Brief Analysis of Section 498A of IPC
4] iPleaders Blog – All you need to know about Section 498A of IPC
5] indiankanoon.org – Sections 498A, 304B & 306 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860; Sections 113A & 113B of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872; Section 198A of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973
6] FAQTLY – The Conviction rate of Sec 498A cases falls as Conviction rate of IPC crimes increases
7] SBS Punjabi – ’80 per cent of all dowry cases in India end in acquittal’
8] Section 498A: A Report Based Upon Analyzing Data From the National Crime Records, 2005-2009, Prepared by Swayam, Kolkata
The Gavel's Ken 