Today, the suicidal death of Bengaluru-based 34-year-old AI engineer Atul Subash has become one of the most well-known cases of the misuse of Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). His tragic suicide, accompanied by a 24-page suicide note and an 80-minute long video, has raised numerous questions about the Indian judicial system. These documents highlight the perceived lack of justice for men compared to women, delays in justice, and potential judicial corruption.
Although our judicial system claims to be gender-neutral, it often appears biased towards women. Even the Supreme Court of India has observed that Section 498A of the IPC, along with other matrimonial laws and provisions of the Domestic Violence Act, are among the most abused laws in the country, according to a Bar and Bench report. This flagrant misuse of Section 498A has become a significant concern. The Law Commission has also acknowledged the abuse of this provision in its 243rd report. However in its 237th and 154th reports the LC had suggested making 498A compoundable.
Atul Subhash's case is not an isolated one, as there have been other instances where men have faced extreme mental and emotional pressure due to false accusations under Section 498A. In many cases, scam marriages are conducted by women to extort money by abusing Section 498A and settling the case outside the courtroom in return for money.
Understanding Section 498A of the IPC,
Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) is now referred to as Section 85 under the new Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS). It was added to the IPC during the 1980s due to increasing dowry deaths and cases of domestic violence. Cruelty, dowry demand and punishment and purpose are the three main components of Section 498A. It sought to provide legal protection to women suffering from physical and mental harassment, dowry-associated abuse, coercion, and violence within marriages. It is crucial to remember that Section 498A is a cognizable and non-bailable offense, which means the victim (wife) cannot withdraw the case, and the police can make an arrest of the husband without a warrant or preliminary research.(Though the number of arrests under Sec 498A registered decreased significantly in the wake of the Arnesh Kumar Judgment in 2014, the police are now required to call accused people under CrPC 41 A).
It is important to understand that, once a case is filed under Sec498A, it typically takes 4-6 years from the filing of the FIR to the case's resolution. As a result, the husband and his family endure mental torture for 4-6 years while bearing the financial burden of defending the case.
Misuse of Section 498A,
The misuse of Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) has been a topic of significant debate and concern in India. It refers to situations where women falsely accuse their husbands and in-laws of cruelty under this Indian Penal Code section. Often, it is used as a tool to gain leverage in marital disputes, leading to unnecessary criminal proceedings against the husband and his family, even when there is no genuine case of domestic violence involved. Other matrimonial laws, such as The Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, and maintenance laws, are also being misused by women to file complaints against husbands for minor issues, leading to unnecessary legal battles. It's unfortunate that several sections of the IPC consider only women as victims and men as perpetrators. This misuse can lead to severe consequences, including social ostracization, financial loss, and, in extreme cases, suicide.
'According to an article published in 2021, a significant portion of married men's suicides in India are the result of unfounded allegations or marital conflicts. 33% of suicides are due to health issues, 23% are due to financial difficulties, 14% are due to marital conflict, and 30% are due to other causes. These figures paint a very graphic picture of the psychological and emotional damage that unfounded allegations can cause.'
Additionally, the misuse of Section 498A has far-reaching implications for the judicial system. It increases the burden on courts, delays justice delivery, and clogs the judicial process with frivolous cases. Genuine victims of domestic violence may also suffer as the credibility of the law is questioned due to its misuse. The Supreme Court has pointed out that “By misuse of the provision (498A IPC), a new legal terrorism can be unleashed”. Thus, generalized and ambiguous accusations made during these disputes may encourage the abuse of legal provisions, especially given the surge in matrimonial disputes nationwide.
Statistical Evidence,
It is impossible to categorize the precise number of "true" and "false" cases under Section 498A IPC (now Section 85 BNS) because there is insufficient data to distinguish between genuine cruelty cases and those deemed false accusations. Several court rulings and legal opinions have raised concerns about the potential abuse of Section 498A, where women may falsely accuse their husbands and in-laws of cruelty, often citing marital disputes as justification.
According to available data, over 1 lakh cases are filed every year under Section 498A IPC in India. Although there is little information on false cases, certain sources indicate that a sizable percentage of Section 498A cases are closed by the police because they are unfounded or lack supporting evidence. In 2020, for example, the police closed 14.4% of the 111,549 complaints filed under Section 498A because they did not find validity in the case.
Concerns regarding the misuse of this section have led to a high number of cases, although exact numbers for the last five years are not readily accessible due to variations in reporting across states.
Data from various sources, including the National Crime Records Bureau (NCRB) 2012 report, highlighted the extent to which Section 498A is misused, with a charge-sheeting rate as high as 93.6% and a conviction rate as low as 15%. Additionally, an NCRB report indicated that out of 4,66,079 cases pending at the start of 2013, only 7,258 resulted in convictions, while 38,165 were acquitted and 8,218 were withdrawn. This provision has frequently been in the news due to allegations of false complaints and the low conviction rate, highlighting the lack of legal recourse for men facing abuse from women.
Innocent people wrongfully accused under this section may face harsh legal consequences, including arrests, incarceration, and drawn-out legal battles to establish their innocence. Concerned about this abuse, the Supreme Court has issued guidelines to address the problem. This striking disparity underscores the potential for legal abuse as well as the challenges of substantiating the claims in court.
The following examples demonstrate the widespread abuse of Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and the court's stance on it,
In Sushil Kumar Sharma v. Union of India - a plea was filed under Article 32 of the Constitution asking the Supreme Court to rule that 498A is unconstitutional or, alternatively, to establish rules that would limit its abuse. The appellant contended that wives were abusing Section 498A to intimidate and threaten their husbands and in-laws. Although the Supreme Court recognized that the clause was being abused, it maintained its constitutionality.
In Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar - the Supreme Court issued recommendations to stop arbitrary arrests after voicing concerns about the abuse of Section 498A. The necessity of objective and equitable inquiries was emphasized by the court.
In Savitri Devi v. Ramesh Chand - the family court denied the wife's request for a divorce, stating that the husband's accusations were unprovable. The court learned during the high court hearing that the woman had filed a criminal complaint against her husband under section 498A of the Indian Penal Code.
A criminal case was filed in Preeti Gupta & Anr v. State of Jharkhand & Anr-SC, claiming that all of the accused physically abused the wife in Mumbai and demanded a luxury car.
However, the evidence revealed that appellant number one had been living with her husband for over seven years and was a permanent resident of Navasari, Surat, Gujarat; the appellants had never even lived with her spouse or visited the scene of the purported occurrence.
The Supreme Court stated that “permitting the complainant to pursue this complaint would be an abuse of the process of law” because the complaints were made specifically to torment the husband's family.
Similarly, in Kulwinder Kaur and Anr v. Manjit Kaur and Anr-P&H, the high court dismissed the proceedings filed under s. 498A because there was no basis for the alleged interference in the matrimonial home, citing the fact that the complaint was against the complainant's husband's uncle and aunt, who had both been living apart from the estranged couple for the previous 14 years.
"Recently, there has been a tendency to involve all the relations in dowry cases in order to browbeat and pressurize the husband's immediate family," the top court noted, ruling that the claims lacked trust.
The Supreme Court of India rendered a significant ruling in the 2000 case of Kans Raj v. State of Punjab. The meaning of "cruelty" in relation to Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code was at issue in this case. In this judgment, the Supreme Court broadened the definition of cruelty under Section 498A IPC to encompass a variety of marital abuses, including verbal and physical abuse, emotional manipulation, and harassment. The ruling highlighted that mental cruelty can have serious and enduring consequences for the victim's wellbeing and is just as serious as physical cruelty. "In this case, the court acknowledged that mental cruelty needed to be addressed under Section 498A IPC."
According to the circumstances of the case, Bibi Parwana Khatoon v. State of Bihar, the husband and his family members were accused of killing the wife by burning her alive. The deceased's brother-in-law and sister-in-law filed an appeal with the Supreme Court after becoming dissatisfied with the rulings made by the lower courts.
After reviewing the documentary and oral evidence, the court found that the lower courts had erred in issuing conviction orders. It was unable to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the dead had been tortured by the brother-in-law and sister-in-law. Additionally, the appellants did not share the husband's desire to commit the crime, and they had previously lived in a separate hamlet. The conviction orders were overturned.
Union of India v. Social Action Forum for Manav Adhikar (2018) - In this decision, the Supreme Court emphasized the need of preventing Section 498A abuse. The court emphasized how important it is to maintain the right balance between protecting women from abuse and defending the accused's rights. In order to prevent harassing innocent people, the ruling emphasized how critical it is to address false charges.
Numerous instances, such as Ramgopal v. State of Madhya Pradesh, Neelu Chopra & Anr. V. Bharati (2009), and Rajesh Sharma v. State of U.P. (2017), have addressed the abuse of Section 498A.
The issue of false accusations under Section 498A highlights the need for a balanced approach that protects the rights of all individuals involved. It also underscores the importance of ensuring that legal mechanisms are in place to prevent misuse and that justice is delivered fairly and efficiently.
Reference:
https://www.business-standard.
https://voiceformenindia.com/
https://lexforti.com/legal-
https://www.linkedin.com/
https://brighterkashmir.com/
https://www.iasexam.com/
; and others
0 Comments