PROJECT REPORT

ANALYSIS OF SECTION 498-A

AND

ARNESH KUMAR

V.

STATE OF BIHAR

(2014) 8 SCC 273

Submitted to:

Dr. pushpinder kaur

Assistant Professor, UILS

Panjab University

Chandigarh

Submitted by:

Divya
RollNo.137/13

BCom LLB (C)

Semester: V
 INDIAN PENAL CODE-II

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

I take this opportunity to express my profound gratitude and deep regards to my teacher Dr.
Pushpinder Kaur for her exemplary guidance, monitoring and constant encouragement. I would
also like to take this opportunity to express a deep sense of gratitude to the UILS library staff for
cooperating with me and helping me to find the required books.

Lastly, I thank almighty, my parents, and friends for their constant encouragement and moral
support without which this project would not be possible.

Divya

137/13

2
 INDIAN PENAL CODE-II

TABLE OF CONTENTS

S.No. TOPIC PAGE

NUMBER

1. ANALYSIS OF SECTION 498-A 1

2. HISTORY BEHIND SECTION 498- A 2

3. MEANING AND CONSTITUTIONAL VALIDITY OF THE TERM CRUELTY 4

4. ARNESH KUMAR V. STATE OF BIHAR 14

5. RATIONALE AND THE DECISION BY THE SUPREME COURT 15

6, CRITICAL ANALYSIS 19

7. NCRB DATA AND ITS ANALYSIS 20

8. LATEST CASE LAWS 25-30

PINAKIN MAHIPATRAY RAWAL VS STATE OF GUJARAT

VIJAY PAL SINGH & ORS VS STATE OF UTTARKHAND

3
 INDIAN PENAL CODE-II

TABLE OF CASES

Arnesh Kumar V.State of Bihar

Inder Raj Malik vs. Sunita Malik

Kaliyaperumal vs. State of Tamil Nadu

Mohd. Hoshan vs. State of A.P

Pinakin Mahipatray Rawal V State Of Gujarat

Ramesh Dalaji Godad v. State of Gujrat

Srinivasulu v. State Of AP (2007)

Sushil K. Sharma vs Union of India and Ors

Vijay Pal Singh & Ors Vs State Of Uttarkhand

4
 INDIAN PENAL CODE-II

SECTION 498 A: AN ANALYSIS

OF CRUELTY BY HUSBAND OR RELATIVES OF HUSBAND

INTRODUCTION Formatted: Centered

WHO declared,
Violence against women causes more deaths and disability than many diseases put together
and violence against women is a common phenomenon in Indian society.
We Indians constitute a male dominated society. Despite the fact that marriage is a highly pious
and respected institution in India, our intrinsic characteristic of male dominance led to the
suppression of women after marriage. The original Indian Penal Code which was drafted by the
Britishers had no specific provision to deal with this India specific problem.1 This section aims to
curb cruelty meted out to the weaker spouse and savour from the whims and fancies of the man.
As has already been pointed out Section 498 A was introduced in the Indian Penal Code by
Criminal Law (2nd Amendment) Act of 1983 which came into force with effect from
25/12/1993, it is also pertinent here to mention that Section 498 A is prospective in operation
which means any offence constituted before 25/12/1983 which meets out the ingredients of the
section shall not be punishable under the section. 2
International Conventions like Convention for Elimination of all forms of Discrimination against
Women (CEDAW). Hence, India made special provisions for women to address this inequality.
Legislations like Sections 113 B, 498A & 304B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, Dowry
Prohibition Act (DPA), Protection of Women against Domestic Violence (PWDVA) address
violence against women. These also lay the position that the institutions of marriage and family
are not insulated from state interventions, particularly where there is violence against women
within such institutions. 3

1
http://www.worldwidejournals.com/ijsr/file.php?val=October_2014_1412258644__65.pdf
2
High Court of Madras in the case Prasanna Kumar vs Dhanalauxmi reported as 1989 CrLJ 1829.
3
Understanding Section 498A (of Indian Penal Code, on Domestic Violence) - iPleaders
http://blog.ipleaders.in/understanding-section-498a-of-indian-penal-code-on-domestic-violence/#ixzz46SiyURKU

5
 INDIAN PENAL CODE-II

HISTORY BEHIND SECTION 498- A

Sec 498A was thus introduced in the IPC in 1983 closely followed by Sec 304B which defined the
special offence of dowry-related death of a woman in 1986 and the related amendments in the
Indian Evidence Act 1872. It is believed that Sec 498A and Sec 304B were introduced to
complement each other and be part of a scheme, since Sec 304B addresses the particular offence of
dowry death and Sec 498A sought to address the wide-scale violence against married women for
dowry.

INADEQUATE PUNISHMENT
It was felt that the general offences already provided for in the IPC were not adequate and
stringent enough to deal with the atrocities against women. Cruelty against women within the
institution of marriage posed certain difficulties in prosecuting the accused and proving their
guilt. This was because, very often , women bear their sufferings in silent.Obtaining independent
witnesses is also difficult because the violence against the wife is generally inflicted within
4
confines of the home .
RISING CRUELTY AND DOWRY DEATHS
During the 1980s, dowry deaths were steadily rising in India. Dowry death is the murder of a
young woman; committed by the in-laws, upon non-fulfillment of their coercive demands for
money, articles or property, commonly called as dowry. Cases of cruelty by husband and
relatives of the husband culminating into suicide/ murder of innocent helpless women though
constitute only a small but a gruelling fraction of cases involving cruelty. With the increasing
number of dowry deaths in India, need arose to address the matter in an effective way.
Organizations across the country pressurized and urged the government to provide legislative
protection to women against domestic violence and dowry. The objective was to allow the state

4
http://www.legalservicesindia.com/article/article/sec-498a-i-p-c-its-use-and-misuse-472-1.html

6
 INDIAN PENAL CODE-II

to intervene rapidly and prevent the murders of young girls who were unable to meet the dowry
demands of their in-laws.

AMENDMENT OF 1983
With this object, the Government of India amended the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) by way of
the Criminal Law (Second Amendment) Act, 1983 and inserted a new section 498 (A) under
Chapter XX-A, Of Cruelty By Husband Or Relatives Of Husband on 26th December, 1983. The
amendment focuses not only on dowry deaths but also cases of cruelty to married women by
their in-laws. Section 498 (A) IPC is the only section in the IPC that recognizes domestic
violence against women as a crime. Subsequent amendments were also made in the Code of
Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC) and the Indian Evidence Act, 1972 (IEA) by the same
amendment on order to effectively deal with cases of dowry deaths and cruelty to married
women by the husband, in laws and relatives.
Further, demands for dowry and harassment Of women if they fail to meet the demands, may not
always be in the form of direct assault on the body of woman. The violence is often in subtler
forms ,but equally torturous , many a time driving the woman to take her own life. In order to
tackle this it was felt by the Parliament that comprehensive legislative changes were required at
three levels:
i) To define the substantive offence of cruelty to women by husbands and relatives '1 of
husbands;
ii) To introduce procedures which make investigation in cases of certain deaths of women
mandatory;
iii) To bring changes in the Evidence Act, which will make prosecution and conviction of
accused in cases of violation against women easier.
Accordingly, 428A. and 304B were added to the IPC, creating separate offences in respect
of acts of cruelty to a woman by a husband and his relatives and dowry death respectively.
Similarly 174 was amended making inquests by executive magistrates mandatory in cases
of suicides or suspicious deaths of a woman within seven years marriage.
113B was added to the Evidence Act wherein it was provided that if it was shown that soon
before the death-Tia woman she was subjected to cruelty or harassment by a person in

7
 INDIAN PENAL CODE-II

connection with demand for dowry, then it shall be presumed that such person who harassed
the woman had caused the death of the woman.
These three-pronged changes in the IPC, the CrPC and the Evidence Act are no doubt an
improvement to the earlier laws and are important to some extent to safeguard the rights of
women. However, in the ultimate analysis, any number of legislative changes will be
inadequate, unless the gender bias in social institutions and the gender discriminative social
attitude towards women are transformed. Equally important is need for changing and
redefining the nature of gender roles within the institution marriage, so that a patriarchal
order is replaced by a gender equal order. Having considered the historical context in which s
498A was introduced into IPA, we will now examine different dimensions of the law on the
subject. 5

5
Dr. K.I. Vibhute, P.S.A. Pillais Criminal Law (12th ed. Lexis Nexis, Gurgaon 2015)

8
 INDIAN PENAL CODE-II

MEANING OF THE TERM CRUELTY

The expression cruelty has been defined in wide terms so as to include inflicting physical or
mental harm to the body or health of the woman and indulging in acts of harassment with a view
to coerce her or her relations to meet any unlawful demand for any property or valuable security.
Harassment for dowry falls within the sweep of latter limb of the section. Creating a situation
driving the woman to commit suicide is also one of the ingredients of cruelty. The offence
under S. 498A is cognizable, non-compoundable and non-bailable.
In the case of Ramesh Dalaji Godad v. Sate of Gujrat6; the Supreme Court held that to prove that
cruelty was caused under Explanation a) of S.498A IPC it is not important to show or put forth
that the woman was beaten up- abusing her verbally, denying her conjugal rights or even not
speaking to her properly would fall into the ambit of mental cruelty.
The Supreme Court in another case 7stated that Consequences of cruelty which are likely to
drive a woman to commit suicide or to cause grave injury or danger to life, limb, or health,
whether mental or physical of the woman is required to be established in order to bring home the
application of Section 498A IPC.
It was held in Kaliyaperumal vs. State of Tamil Nadu8 that cruelty is a common essential in
offences under both the sections 304B and 498A of IPC. The two sections are not mutually
inclusive but both are distinct offences and persons acquitted under section 304B for the offence
of dowry death can be convicted for an offence under sec.498A of IPC. The meaning of cruelty
is given in explanation to section 498A. Section 304B does not contain its meaning but the
meaning of cruelty or harassment as given in section 498-A applies in section 304-B as well.

In the case of Inder Raj Malik vs. Sunita Malik 9 it was held that the word cruelty is defined in
the explanation which inter alia says that harassment of a woman with a view to coerce her or
any related persons to meet any unlawful demand for any property or any valuable security is
cruelty.

6
Gaur, K.D., The Indian Penal Code (Universal Law Publishing Co. Pvt. Ltd., 2012)
7
Srinivasulu v. State Of AP (2007)
8
2004 (9) SCC 157
9
1986 (2) Crimes 435.

9
 INDIAN PENAL CODE-II

The Supreme Court, in Mohd. Hoshan vs. State of A.P.10observed: Whether one spouse has
been guilty of cruelty to the other is essentially a question of fact. The impact of complaints,
accusation or taunts on a person amounting to cruelty depends on various factors like the
sensitivity of the victim concerned, the social background, the environment, education etc.
Further, mental cruelty varies from person to person depending on the intensity of the sensitivity,
degree of courage and endurance to withstand such cruelty. Each case has to be decided on its
own facts whether mental cruelty is made out.

SEC 498A AND THE ALLEGATION OF MISUSE

In the last 20 years of criminal law reform a common argument made against laws relating to
violence against women in India has been that women misuse these laws. The police, civil
society, politicians and even judges of the High Courts and Supreme Court have offered these
arguments of the "misuse' of laws vehemently. The allegation of misuse is made particularly
against Sec 498A of the IPC, and against the offence of dowry death in Sec 304B.

One such view was expressed by former Justice K T Thomas in his article titled 'Women and the
Law', which appeared in The Hindu. The 2003 Malimath Committee report on reforms in the
criminal justice system also notes, significantly, that there is a "general complaint" that Sec 498A
of the IPC is subject to gross misuse; it uses this as justification to suggest an amendment to the
provision, but provides no data to indicate how frequently the section is being misused. It is
important therefore that such "arguments" are responded to, so as to put forth a clearer picture of
the present factual status of the effect of several criminal laws enacted to protect women.

Domestic violence and abuse by spouses and family members are complex behaviours and the
social organisation of courts, the police and legal cultures systematically tend to devalue
domestic violence cases. Sec 498A was introduced in the IPC in 1983 and the reforms of the past
20 years have not been adequately evaluated at all by the government with respect to their
deterrence goals, despite the institutionalization of law and policy to criminalise domestic
violence.

10
2002 Cr.L.J 4124

10
 INDIAN PENAL CODE-II

A programme of research and development is urgently required to advance the current state of
knowledge on the effects of legal sanctions on domestic violence. The narrow or perhaps almost
negligible study done by law enforcement agencies about the deterrent effects of legal sanctions
for domestic violence stands in high contrast with the extensive efforts of activists, victim
advocates and criminal justice practitioners in mobilising law and shaping policy to stop
domestic violence. It is important to do these studies to correct the general misconceptions that
women are misusing the law by filing false cases against their husbands and in-laws in order to
harass them and get them convicted. The perspective of the state and its agencies needs to
change from that of protecting the husbands and in-laws against potential "misuse" of the laws of
domestic violence to that of implementing their real purpose to recognise that such violence is
a crime and protect women who have the courage to file complaints against their abusers.

MALIMATH COMMITTEE REPORT

In 2003, the Committee came out with the following recommendations There is a general
complaint that section 498A of the IPC regarding cruelty by the husband or his relatives is
subjected to gross misuse and many times operates against the interest of the wife herself (The
Committee provides no data to support the statement of misuse). This offence is nonbailable
and non-compoundable. Hence husband and other members of the family are arrested and can be
behind the bars which may result in husband losing his job. Even if the wife is willing to
condone and forgive the lapse of the husband and live in matrimony, this provision comes in the
way of spouses returning to the matrimonial home. This hardship can be avoided by making the
offence bailable and compoundable.Analysis of the report shows that the Committee gives no
references to evidence of misuse of Sec 498A anywhere in the report. 11

11
http://www.legalservicesindia.com/article/article/sec-498a-i-p-c-its-use-and-misuse-472-1.html

11
 INDIAN PENAL CODE-II

CONSTITUTIONAL VALIDITY OF SECTION 498-A

In Sushil K. Sharma vs Union of India and Ors.12 before Supreme Court, the petitioner prayed to
declare Sec 498A to be unconstitutional. The Supreme Court (SC), in its July 19, 2005 judgment,
refused to strike down Sec 498A IPC as unconstitutional and invalid.

DECISION OF THE COURT

The mere possibility of abuse of a provision of law does not invalidate the law. In cases of abuse,
it is the action and not the section that may be vulnerable - the SC said.

In the same case, the Supreme Court has observed as follows: the petitioner many
instances have come in light where complaints are not bona fide and have been filed with oblique
motive. .. By misuse of the provision a new legal terrorism can be unleashed. .. It is to be
noted that the role of the investigating agencies and the courts is that of watch dog and not of a
bloodhound. It should be their effort to see that in innocent person is not made to suffer on
account of unfounded, baseless and malicious allegations.

In the judgment of the Delhi high Court on 19th May 2003 in the case of Savitri Devi vs. Ramesh
Chand and others 13 the Honble Justice J.D.Kapoor commented upon the misuse of the
provisions of Sec 498A/406 IPC by women complainants and the investigating agency He
commented that it is hitting the very foundation of marriage and has proved to be not so good
for the health of the society at large. There is a growing tendency amongst the women which is
further perpetuated by their parents and relatives to rope in each and every relative including
minors and even school going kids nearer or distant relatives and in some cases grand-parents or
as many as 10 to 15 or even more relatives of the husband. The threat of arrest making them run
here and there and force them to hide at their friends or relatives houses till they get anticipatory
bail as the offence has been made cognizable and non-bailable. The Justice also affirmed that
menace and evil of dowry are still looming large. Yet, suggestions were made that marital
offences under Sections 498A/406 IPC be made bailable, if no grave physical injury is inflicted
and necessarily compoundable, if the parties decide so. The Justice ended his order by saying
that:

12
Writ Petition (civil) 141 of 2005
13
(CRL. R 462/2002)

12
 INDIAN PENAL CODE-II

There is growing tendency to come out with inflated and exaggerated allegations roping in
each and every relation of the husband and if one of them happens to be of higher status or of
vulnerable standing, he or she becomes an easy prey for better bargaining and blackmailing.14

14
Gaur, K.D., The Indian Penal Code (Universal Law Publishing Co. Pvt. Ltd., 2012)

13
 INDIAN PENAL CODE-II

ARNESH KUMAR
V.
STATE OF BIHAR
(2014) 8 SCC 273
BENCH: CHANDRAMAULI KR. PRASAD, PINAKI CHANDRA GHOSE

DECIDED ON : 2 JULY, 2014

FACTS
The Petitioner had preferred a Special Leave Petition before the Supreme Court after having
failed to secure anticipatory bail before the Sessions Judge and thereafter, the High Court of
Bihar in a matrimonial dispute.
The allegation levelled by the wife against the is that demand Rupees eight lacs, a maruti car,
an air-conditioner, television set etc. was made by her mother-in-law and father-in-law and
when this fact was brought to the Arnesh Kumars notice, he supported his mother and
threatened to marry another woman. It has been alleged that the wife was driven out of the
matrimonial home due to non- fulfillment of the demand of dowry.

ISSUE INVOLVED
The allegation levelled against the Petitioner Mr. Arnesh Kumar involved making illicit
demands for dowry, an offence punishable under Section 498 A of I.P.C. and Section 4 of the
Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961.

14
 INDIAN PENAL CODE-II

RATIO DECIDENDI LAID DOWN BY THE COURT

NCRB DATA
ANALYSED BY THE
COURT

BASIS FOR THE DECISION OF GUIDELINES FOR

REMARKS ON
THE COURT THE POLICE
THE POWERS OF
OFFICIALS
THE POLICE

INTRODUCTORY REMARKS OF THE COURT

The Court begins its judgment highlighting the point that the matrimonial disputes have been on
the rise and the institution of marriage that has been revered and worshipped in this country since
years is facing the problem that the wives have started using the legal provisions as a weapon
than a shield. The provisions that were drafted with the objective of providing an umbrella to
them, have been misused time and again.

THE RELIANCE OF THE COURT ON NCRB DATA

Crime in India 2012 Statistics published by National Crime Records Bureau, Ministry of
Home Affairs shows

The court took note of the following facts

Arrest of 1,97,762 persons all over India during the year 2012 for Offence under Section
498-A of the IPC, 9.4% more than the year 2011.

Nearly a quarter of those arrested under this provision in 2012 were women i.e. 47,951 which
depicts that mothers and sisters of the husbands were liberally included in their arrest net.

Its share is 6% out of the total persons arrested under the crimes committed under Indian
Penal Code.

15
 INDIAN PENAL CODE-II

The rate of charge-sheeting in cases under Section 498A, IPC is as high as 93.6%, while the
conviction rate is only 15%, which is lowest across all heads.

As many as 3,72,706 cases are pending trial of which on current estimate, nearly 3,17,000 are
likely to result in acquittal.

REMARKS ON THE POLICE OFFICIALS

The Supreme Court, in its Ruling, emphasized on the need for caution while exercising the
drastic power of arrest, which has for years, been treated as a tool for harassment and
oppression in the hands of the police authorities and has greatly contributed to police corruption
in India. Citing statistics to demonstrate the misuse of the power of arrest by the police
authorities, the Supreme Court proceeded to set out certain objective criteria to be applied before
making arrest under the Cr.P.C. The court stressed on the point that this has become a handy tool
for the Police Officials who lack sensitivity or to fulfill their other motives.

GIST OF THE JUDGEMENT

The Supreme Court held that no arrest should be made only because the offence is non-
bailable and cognizable. Neither should arrest be made in a routine, casual and cavalier
manner or on a mere allegation of commission of an offence made against a person.
Arrest should only be made after reasonable satisfaction reached after due investigation as to the
genuineness of the allegation. Dealing with Section 41 (1) of the Cr.P.C., which provides for
conditions precedent to making arrest, the Supreme Court emphasized that for making arrest, the
police must be satisfied that all the conditions set out in the provision are met viz.,:

Arrest is necessary:

to prevent such person from committing any further offence; or

for proper investigation of the case; or
to prevent destruction or tampering with evidence by the accused; or
to prevent such person from influencing the witnesses; or
to ensure presence of the accused in the court.

Police must, in any case, record reasons for making, or not making the arrest in a particular case.

16
 INDIAN PENAL CODE-II

Further, the Supreme Court laid down the circumstances in which the Magistrate might authorize
detention of the accused. As per Article 22(2) of the Constitution of India and Section 57 of the
Cr.P.C, an accused must be produced before the Magistrate without unnecessary delay and in no
circumstance beyond 24 hours, excluding the time necessary for the journey. An accused may be
kept in detention beyond 24 hours of his arrest, only when authorized by the Magistrate
The Supreme Court held that when an accused is produced before the Magistrate, the
police officer effecting the arrest must furnish the facts, the reasons and the conclusions for
arrest and the Magistrate, only upon being satisfied that the conditions of Section 41of Cr.P.C.
are met and after recording its satisfaction in writing, may proceed to authorize the detention of
an accused.
The Supreme Court, further, clarified that even in terms of Section 41 A of the Cr.P.C., where
arrest of an accused is not required, the conditions precedent to arrest as envisaged under Section
41 of Cr.P.C.must be complied with and shall be subject to the same scrutiny by the Magistrate.
The Supreme Court, in its Ruling, further condemned the practice of police mechanically
reproducing reasons contained inSection 41 Cr.P.C. for effecting arrest in case diaries being
maintained by the police officers.
DIRECTIONS ISSUED TO THE POLICE OFFICIALS

In light of the above, the Supreme Court has issued the following directions to all the State
Governments:-

No Mechanical Arrest: To instruct the police officers to not mechanically arrest the accused
under Section 498 A of I.P.C. without satisfying themselves that the conditions of arrest are
met;
Following Section 41 CrPC: All police officers to be provided with the check-list of
conditions precedent prescribed under Section 41 of Cr.P.C. This checklist is to be duly filed
and forwarded to the Magistrate while producing the accused for further detention;
Detention after perusal of Magistrate: The Magistrate shall then peruse the report
provided by the police officer and only after recording its satisfaction in writing, may
authorize detention;
Two Weeks Time For Appearance:The notice of appearance in terms of Section 41 A
Cr.P.C. should be served on the accused within two weeks from the date of institution of the

17
 INDIAN PENAL CODE-II

case. The same may be extended by the Superintendent of police for reasons to be recorded
in writing.
Contempt proceedings in case of Non-follow up: Failure to comply with the directives set
out above may render police officers/Magistrates liable for departmental action and
proceedings for contempt of court to be instituted before the High Court having territorial
jurisdiction.

18
 INDIAN PENAL CODE-II

CRITICAL ANALYSIS

A. High rate of Incidents & Low Conviction Rate

Indias law on arrest, though fairly evolved, still lacks the desired clarity. The unprecedented rise
in the instances of arrest coupled with high charge-sheeting rate on the one hand and low
conviction rate on the other hand clearly demonstrate the need to check abuse of the power of
arrest vested with the authorities in India.

B. Respite From Mechanical Approach

The directions issued by the Supreme Court in the Ruling provide some respite from the
casual/mechanical approach of the authorities in making arrest/authorizing detentions on the
basis of mere allegations of commission of an offence.

C. Step Forward towards Reducing Corruption among Police Officials

the Ruling proves to be another step forward in Indias efforts in developing a fair and
corruption-free environment and curbing the unfettered powers of the Police Officials.

D. Raises Accountability of Police and magistrates

As per the directives issued it ensures that both the police officials and magistrates record reasons
in writing, inform the accused well in advance and provide them with the information two weeks
in advance.

19
 INDIAN PENAL CODE-II

NATIONAL CRIME RECORDS BUREAU DATA

Crime against Women in 2014

1.30%
1.10% Cruelty by husband or
2.90% 2.50% 0.60% relatives
Outraging modesty of a
3.00% woman
Rape

10.90% 36.40% Dowry Prohibition act

Insult to modesty of
women
24.30% Dowry Death

Attempt to commit rape

abetment of Sucide

20
 INDIAN PENAL CODE-II

Cruelty by husband or his relatives

Assault on woman with Intent to outrage her Modesty S-354

Rape

Kidnapping and Abduction

Dowry Death

Dowry Prohibition Act

Other Crimes against women

21
 INDIAN PENAL CODE-II

TABLES DEPICTING NCRB DATA

The following data has been provided by the National Crime Records
Bureau regarding the crime in the year 2014:15

TABLE DEPICTS CRIMES AGAINST WOMEN AND CASES OF DOWRY DEATHS

S. NO. CRIME HEADS CASES % TO RATE CHARGE- CONVICT

REPORTED TOTAL IPC OF SHEETING ION RATE
CRIMES CRIME RATE
1. Crimes against 337922 11.9 56.3 91.0 21.3
women

2. Dowry Deaths 8455 0.3 1.4 94.1 33.0

15
Source: Crimes in India 2014, Figures at a Glance-2014, assessed from ncrb.nic.in.

22
 INDIAN PENAL CODE-II

NATIONAL CRIME RECORDS BUREAU data for previous years:

TABLE NO. 2.16

S. CRIME HEADS YEARS

N O.
2004 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014

1. Cruelty by Cases 58121 89546 94041 99135 106527 118866 122877

husband or his
Relatives

2. Rate of - 11.1 15.8 16.4 16.9 18.2 20.1 20.5

Conviction in
cases of
Cruelty by
husband

3. Dowry Deaths Cases 7026 8383 8391 8618 8233 8083 8455

4. Rate of - 1.3 1.5 1.5 1.4 1.4 1.5 1.4

Conviction in
cases of Dowry
Death

16
Source: Crimes in India 2014, Statistics- Table 1.3, assessed from ncrb.nic.in.

23
 INDIAN PENAL CODE-II

NATIONAL CRIME RECORDS BUREAU

Data regarding Crime in different states in the year 2014:17

TABLE NO. 3

S. NO. STATE/UT CRUELTY AGAINST WOMEN BY

HUSBAND AND HIS RELATIVES D
Incidence Victims Rate of
Cognizable
Crime

HIGHEST IN STATES:
1. West Bengal 23278 23278 51.9
2. Rajasthan 15905 15956 46.7
3. Uttar Pradesh 10471 10471 10.4

LOWEST IN STATES:
4. Nagaland 3 3 0.3
5. Sikkim 5 5 1.7
6. Mizoram 8 8 1.6

HIGHEST IN UTS
7. Delhi UT 3173 3173 35.2
8. Chandigarh 14 14 20.3

LOWEST IN UTS
9. Lakshadweep 0 0 0.0
10. Daman and Diu 1 1 1.0

17
Source: Crimes in India 2014, Statistics- Table 1.6 assessed from ncrb.nic.in.

24
 INDIAN PENAL CODE-II

DATA ANALYSIS

The state that has the highest incidence is West Bengal where the rate of crime is around 51%
which records that the almost every second household is facing this problem and cases have
been reported. But there may be another side to the coin that as we see that the Convictin rate all
across India is one third when compared to the incidence of the Crime. There may stand a
chance equally that they are frivolous cases against the husband and their Families.

After west Bengal comes Rajasthan which is also a gender-sensitive area. The case of Vishakha
V. State of Rajasthan also owes its origin to the same state. And the Uttar Pradesh is also not far
behind and one of the leading cases where such cases have been reported.

But when we look at the rate of crime it is quite high even in Delhi, the national Capital. UTs
like Chandigarh, Mizoram, Nagaland Sikkhim are free from such offences where only rare cases
have been reported.

The SC has also highlighted that the low rate of Conviction as we may see is very low when
compared to the incidence which is a cause for trouble, indeed a perturbing feature. The
pendency of cases is also on the surge while in majority cases acquittal is the result.

25
 INDIAN PENAL CODE-II

LATEST CASE LAWS AND THEIR ANALYSIS

PINAKIN MAHIPATRAY RAWAL
VS

STATE OF GUJARAT 18
ON

9 SEPTEMBER, 2013
BENCH: K.S. RADHAKRISHNAN, PINAKI CHANDRA GHOSE
QUESTION INVOLVED
Can the relationship between A-1 and A-2 was extra-marital leading to cruelty within the
meaning of Section 498A IPC and also amounted to abetment leading to the act of suicide within
the meaning of Section 306 IPC.
CHARGES LEVELLED
A-1, the first accused, along with A-2 and A-3, were charge-sheeted for the offences punishable
under Sections 498A, 304-B and 306 IPC.
DECISION OF THE LOWER COURTS
SESSIONS COURT
The Sessions Court convicted A-1 for the offence punishable under Section 498A IPC and
sentenced him to suffer Rigorous Imprisonment for three years and to pay a fine of
Rs.5,000/- and in default to undergo further RI for six months.
A-1 was also convicted for offence punishable under Section 306 IPC and sentenced to suffer
RI for 10 years and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/- and in default to undergo further RI for six
months.
A-2 and A-3, the mother of A-1 were, however, acquitted of the various offences alleged
against them.
HIGH COURT
On appeal by A-1, the High Court though confirmed the conviction, modified the sentence
under Section 498A IPC to two years and a fine of Rs.2,500/- and in default to undergo
further RI for six months.

18
(2013) 10 SCC 48

26
 INDIAN PENAL CODE-II

Under the offence under Section 306 IPC, the sentence was reduced to RI for five years and
to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/- and in default to undergo RI for one year. It was ordered that the
sentences would run concurrently.
DECISION OF THE SUPREME COURT

FACTS ON THE BASIS OF WHICH THE SC REVERSED THE LOWER COURTS ORDER

The relationship of A-1 and A-2 was a one-sided love affair, there might be some inclination
by the accused towards a-2, his colleague, but it was proved that A-1 had discharged his
marital obligations towards the deceased.
Serious emotional stress in the sense that she had undergone an abortion in the year 1992,
and the year following that, though a daughter was born to her, the daughter also died few
days of its birth. after one or two years, she committed suicide.
Evidence, in any way, is lacking in this case to hold, that due to the alleged relationship
between a-1 and a-2, a-1 had intended or intentionally inflicted any emotional stress on the
deceased wife, so as to drive her to the extreme step of ending her life.
The suicide note she had not made any accusations as such against A-1 or A-2, on the other
hand she stated that it was she who was selfish and egoist. suicide note (ex.44), which was
translated by the High Court, reads as under :-
Also a-2 ever evinced any interest to marry A-1 on the other hand, during the subsistence of
the alleged relationship, A-2 herself got married.

HELD:

Suicide note completely exonerates A-1, which states that he was not responsible for death of the
deceased.The Court held that the relationship A-1 had with A-2 was not of such a nature which
under normal circumstances would drive one to commit suicide or that a-1 by his conduct or
otherwise ever abetted or intended to abet the wife to commit suicide or intended to commit
cruelty in any manner and hence he was acquitted of all charges.

27
 INDIAN PENAL CODE-II

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

VIJAY PAL SINGH & ORS
VS

STATE OF UTTARKHAND
ON

16 DECEMBER, 2014
BENCH: KURIAN JOSEPH, ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE

CHARGES INVOLVED
302 R/W 34,304-B, 201,498-A
FACTS
The marriage between - Narendra Singh-son and the deceased Saroj took place on 10.02.1991.
Ramesh Singh, father of deceased ( PW-1) was informed on 25.05.1991, by the first appellant-
Vijay Pal Singh through his son Rakesh Singh that Saroj was found missing and around 08.00
a.m. on 25.05.1991. Village Pradhan, lodged a report at Police Station, stating therein that one
that he had seen a dead body of an unknown woman in burnt condition in the forest area on the
side of the road.
DECISION BY THE LOWER COURTS
SESSIONS COURT: The Trial Court acquitted all the accused of all the charges mainly on two
counts
(i) the dead body was not in an identifiable condition
(ii) there was no evidence of cruelty or harassment for dowry
The State filed an appeal under Section 378 of Cr.PC before the High Court which was disposed
of by the impugned judgment dated 10.06.2010
HIGH COURT
Section 304-B IPC r/w Section 34IPC: Seven years rigorous imprisonment
498-A : two years' R.I. with fine of Rs.2,000/- each and in default, the defaulter shall undergo
further six months' R.I.
201 IPC: One year's R.I. All the sentences except that of fine shall run concurrently.
To the father Vijay Pal Singh, his younger brother-Rakesh Singh and his brother-in-law-Gyan
Chandra.

28
 INDIAN PENAL CODE-II

SUPREME COURT
Upheld the Conviction of all the appellants and rebutted the charge of Section 302 as incident
being of 1991, the prosecution having not chosen to link all the circumstances in a chain with no
missing links to reach the irresistible and conclusive finding on involvement of the accused
acquits them for the charge of Section -302.19

19
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO (S). 37 OF 2011

29
 INDIAN PENAL CODE-II

BIBLIOGRAPHY

1. Bhattacharya, Prof. T, The Indian Penal Code (Central Law Agency, 6th edition, 2010)
2. Gaur, K.D., The Indian Penal Code (Universal Law Publishing Co. Pvt. Ltd., 2012)
3. K. I. Vibhute, P.S.A. Pillai's Criminal Law, LexisNexis Butterworths India, 2014.
4. M.P. Tandon, The Indian Penal Code (23th Ed. Allahabad Law Agency, Faridabad 2005).
5. Ratanlal and Dheerajlal ,The Indian Penal Code, 32nd edn, Lexis Nexis Butterworths,
2010)

WEBSITES

http://www.dnaindia.com/india/report-modi-government-plans-to-make-anti-dowry-law-
less-stringent-2068347
http://www.legallyindia.com/News-and-current-affairs/Section-498A-I-P-C-Its-Use-
Misuse
http://www.legalservicesindia.com/article/article/sec-498a-i-p-c-its-use-and-misuse-472
http://www.worldwidejournals.com/ijsr/file.php?val=October_2014_1412258644__65.pdf
https://www.saddahaq.com/498a-ipcthe-non-bailable-warrant
Understanding Section 498A (of Indian Penal Code, on Domestic Violence) - iPleaders
http://blog.ipleaders.in/understanding-section-498a-of-indian-penal-code-on-domestic-
violence/#ixzz46SiyURKU
www.ncrb.nic.in.

30