Indian criminal law in respect of gender neutralization is way far from other countries. When it comes to violence against women, men are considered guilty until proven innocent. I am a feminist by far you would, have judged by the title. Let me ask you a question, assuming the fact that you all are against Larceny. How would you feel when someone wrongly accused you of stealing something? Do you feel personally responsible? Do you feel guilty? Today, I would like to discuss the wrongful convictions made to the husband under sec.304-b.
Answers are pretty obvious, so when it comes to violence against women, the husband should feel guilty or personally responsible even without any mistake. Currently, various activists are working for woman rights. Even husbands can get framed under Indian sensitive women laws for no reason.
India’s criminal conviction rate is around 46%. It shows that our courts have found merits only in 46% of cases. The sole purpose of having courts is to find out reasonable evidence against the accused. If not being proved beyond a reasonable doubt, should be acquitted.
In India, people are wrongly accused around in 54% of criminal cases.
Remain awake the above ratio is not just about violence against women cases but covers all criminal cases.
I would like to further argue by defining dowry death and mentioning the cases in which husbands got convicted without reasonable pieces of evidence.
Dowry death (Sec.304-b)
The essential ingredients for attraction of Section 304B are:
(i)The death of a woman must have been, caused in unnatural circumstances.
(ii)The death should have occurred within seven years of marriage.
(iii)Soon before her death, the woman must have been subjected to cruelty or harassment by her husband or his relatives and such cruelty or harassment must be for or in connection with the demand for dowry, and such cruelty or harassment is shown to have been meted out to the woman soon before her death.
Dowry death is cognizable-non-bailable- non-compoundable Offence.
Even In the recent Judgement of SC Preet pal Singh vs. State of UP 2020 Indira Banerjee J. pronounced that:
The failure to lodge an FIR complaining of dowry and harassment before the death of the victim, is in our considered view, inconsequential.
Wrongful convictions
Udhayakumar vs State Represented By on 24 January 2019
Medical Officer examined the deceased stated that she sustained burn injuries by consciously pouring kerosene over her body herself. The deceased mentioned in her dying declaration that for the past one week she suffered acute stomach pain. Therefore, she poured kerosene over her body and set the fire herself. Assistant Chemical Examiner to Government examined the internal organs and did not detect any poison over the same; they opined that the cause of death was due to the burns and its complications. Madras HC pronounced that no ingredients available to implicate him under Sections 306 and 304-B of IPC. Hence, Court acquitted the first appellant/ first accused from the charge under Sections 306 and 304-B of IPC. Further, other accused were also acquitted.
Hazarilal vs State Of M.P on 20 June, 2007
The deceased committed suicide by burning herself in the house of her husband. About ten days before the occurrence, she delivered a son. The appellant financed the lady’s father for the purchase of some articles. Despite this, the appellant had taken a loan in his name for the purpose. The High Court noted that he was not demanding any dowry. Accordingly, the convictions related to Section 304-b was set aside in respect of both the accused persons. HC said that because the deceased committed suicide. There must be some harassment and cruelty that is insupportable and indefensible.
Appasaheb And Anr vs State Of Maharashtra on 5 January 2007
Deceased after two and half years of her marriage, found dead. Her Parent’s gave evidence that she complained about ill-treatment, physical and mental torture for bringing less dowry. Convicted by the trial court, got upheld in appeal by HC. The doctors did not found any sign of external or internal injury on the body of the deceased. They opined, the cause of death was insecticide poisoning.
The insecticide, Thimet is extensively used by farmers for the preservation of crop and even kept in houses. It could be a case where Thimet accidentally got mixed with some food item and was consumed by the deceased. Since an essential ingredient of Section 304-B IPC viz. demand for dowry was not established. SC set aside the conviction and, the appellants were acquitted.
Raman Kumar vs State Of Punjab on 24 April 2009
The prosecution alleged appellants have poured kerosene and burnt the deceased alive. Defended took the plea of accidental death, letter of deceased not showing any evidence of dowry demand. Husband got convicted on an unreasonable accusation. The High Court’s judgment is not only sketchy but also devoid of reasons. However, the prosecution failed to establish the allegation. So far as the appellant is concerned. SC set aside the conviction.
Conclusion
The issue with these sorts of conviction is often because of the nature of the crime. Spectators disregard the criticism against the spouse and his family and raise their favours for ‘violence against woman’.
These wrongful convictions make me feel horrendous. Hitherto, no strict laws are there against those who make such false accusations.
Above are authors personal views, no such intention to disrespect any gender or community. Above case, laws are public.