Bringing you the Best Analytical Legal News
The present incident took place on 4-1-1984, and since then the proceedings have been continuing for over four decades, with the trial itself taking nearly 19 years to conclude, and the present appeal remaining pending for more than 22 years.
“To prove the offence of dowry death, it must be shown that there was cruelty and harassment within 7 years of marriage and that it was meted out for or in connection with, demand for dowry”.
The Court noted that there were repeated incidents of accused and victim, being involved in sexual intercourse. However, the victim never informed any of her family members that the accused trespassed into her house and raped her. Even when she became pregnant, she did not disclose the incident to her family members.
It was not the prosecution’s case that any demand for dowry or any valuable security or other property was made by the accused. Rather, it was an admitted case that the only demand was to arrange Rs 50,000 to meet the legal expenses for applying bail of the husband and her father-in-law, who were in judicial custody.
“Every false complaint of sexual offences not just causes immense damage to the person accused of the offence, but also creates cynicism and distrust across the society, which leads to even the genuine victims of sexual offences suffer, as society starts suspecting her truthful complaint also to be false.”
The Court stated that the charge under Section 377 of IPC could not have been framed against the husband. A ‘consensual’ oral or anal intercourse between any two adults, in private, is not a criminal offence punishable under Section 377 of IPC.
“Every case of suicide does not amount to abetment and therefore, the Court has to see whether the conduct of the accused was such that a normal person, not merely a hypersensitive one, would have been driven to suicide.”
“If the complaint lodged by the prosecutrix is truthful, instead of extending premium to a rapist and a molester by pushing the helpless rape victim into his matrimony, it would be the duty of the State to ensure her a dignified life by providing her food, shelter and clothing.”
Even after assuming, that such relationship existed between petitioner and his sister-in-law, or demeaning language in reference to the deceased, was exchanged via WhatsApp between them, these facts, stand alone, do not, prima facie, disclose the specific ingredients of cruelty or harassment related to dowry demand.
The Court stated that despite having example of Mahabharata to demonstrate the consequence of absurdity of treating of a woman as a chattel, the misogynistic mindset of our society understood this only when the Supreme Court declared Section 497 of Penal Code, 1860 as unconstitutional in Joseph Shine v. Union of India, (2018) 2 SCC 189.
The expression “soon before her death” in Section 304-B of Penal Code, 1860 must be read as an expression of continuity of time and not an expression of mere length of time. The legislature in its wisdom had used the phrase as “soon before” and not “immediately before”.
In criminal jurisprudence, the standard of proof required to sustain a conviction is proof beyond a reasonable doubt, which is significantly higher than the preponderance of probabilities applicable in civil cases.
Since the Call Detail Records and location data have only been ordered to be preserved and not disclosed, there is no basis for the petitioner’s apprehension that this would provide an undue advantage to the defence. The direction simply ensures that potentially relevant evidence is not lost due to automatic deletion.
It is unfortunate that despite directions from Supreme Court and this Court, the trial has not yet concluded. This was unacceptable, considering that such directions were passed while disposing of the bail application, and the accused is in judicial custody for over 10 years. Such prolonged delay in compliance with judicial directions defeats the very purpose of directing expeditious trial.
Public transport, which is meant to ensure mobility and independence, instead became a site of fear and vulnerability for the victim, and any undue leniency to an accused caught at the spot, may embolden any future for perpetrators.
On literal interpretation of Section 115(1) of Mental Healthcare Act, 2017, it can be stated that any person who attempts to commit suicide shall be presumed, unless proved otherwise, to have severe stress and cannot be tried and punished for any offences under Penal Code, 1860.
Such matters are now filed in the heat of the moment on advice of counsel by exaggerating and misconstruing actual events. However, this does not mean that genuine cases of harassment didn’t exist, and it is not blind to the ground reality of the deeply rooted social evil of greed for dowry.
“Youngsters are prone to commit mistakes/follies during their teens or young age for which they cannot be branded as deviant and wholly unreliable.”
“To trivialize a case of murder on the ground that the accused and the victim, being husband and wife, had an altercation and therefore, the husband being drunk at the spur of the moment, had killed her, is not only unacceptable but also shocking.”
The husband’s contention that the present case is not a case where the wife is hospitalised due to cruelty or harassment committed upon her, is not only unmerited but also cross the threshold of having a mentality that in a serious Section 498-A IPC cases, the woman should have injuries and medical treatment record of a hospital.