Case law of ipc,1860, Study Guides, Projects, Research of Law

Download Case law of ipc,1860 and more Study Guides, Projects, Research Law in PDF only on Docsity! CASE SUMMARY REEMA AGGARWAL …..PETITIONER V. ANUPAM ….RESPONDENT Citation of the case: 2004 CR LJ 892 (SC) Nature of the case: Criminal Quorum of the Court: 2 Name of the Judge:A Pasayat(Author) SUBMITTED BY: RUPALI LEKHI INTERN PROBONO INDIA APRIL 26, 2020 1 BACKGROUND OF THE CASE The Criminal Law (Second Amendment) Act of 1983 was made bearing in mind the number of dowry deaths that were on the rise in India. The cruelty caused by her husband and in-laws in the matrimonial home of the woman for more demand of dowry resulted in the suicides and dowry deaths in India. To eradicate this evil from the society, sections 498A and 304B in the Indian Penal Code, 1908 along with section 113B of the Evidence Act, 1872 were added through this amendment. However, even after three decades of the aforementioned amendment, the menace of dowry system in India prevails in large numbers. Time and again several cases of dowry death and cruelty have been reported and one such case is the present case at hand, Reema Aggarwal v. Anupam1. This is a landmark case with respect to the interpretation of the word “husband” within the meaning of sections 498A and 304B, Indian Penal Code, 1908. FACTS OF THE CASE The petitioner and the respondent tied the knot on 25.01.1998. On 03.07.1998 the petitioner was admitted to the Tagore Hospital in Jalandhar for having forcibly consumed poisonous substance. The appellant was examined by the I.O to record her statement as follows:  That she was harassed by her husband, mother-in-law, father-in-law and brother-in- law (respondent no.1,2,3 & 4 respectively) subsequent to her marriage to respondent no 1 for having brought insufficient dowry. She also disclosed that it was the second marriage of both the petitioner and the respondent.  That they forced her to consume a poisonous acidic substance to end her life as a result of which she started vomiting and fell unconscious. The FIR and chargesheet was filed by the police after which charges were framed under section 307 and 498A of Indian Penal Code (IPC).The matter was heard by the Hon’ble trial court. The learned trial court ruled in favour of the accused persons and did not find them guilty. Subsequently a leave to appeal was filed by the state of Punjab before the division bench of the Punjab and Haryana High Court against the acquittal of the accused. However, the leave to appeal was declined and dismissed. In view of such dismissal, criminal revision petition was filed by the appellant which was also dismissed. Hence the present application before the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India. 1Reema Aggarwal v. Anupam, 2004 Cr LJ 892 (SC). 2 of any property valuable security or money as a consideration of marriage. The intent of the legislature is clear to make not only the giving of dowry a punishable offence but the very demand of dowry as a punishable offence as a separate provision. The inclusion of the expression “as consideration of marriage” in the definition of dowry under Section 2 indicated that the aim of this legislation is to prohibit this social evil to be used as a ‘quid pro quo’ for marriage. Marriage is not a contract between two parties but a holy sacrament. It cannot be compared to and equivalent to the value of any property or money.The legislative intent behind enactment of this act is absolutely clear. This Act is a piece of social legislation to curb and reduce the threat of dowry encompassed on the livelihood of the lives of the families and society at large. Section 304B was introduced through the 1986 amendment of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. The legislature rightly decided to create a presumption of dowry death where the death of a woman is caused within seven years of marriage and if there exists evidence that soon before her death, she was subjected to cruelty or harassment by her husband or his relatives in connection with demand for dowry. The liability of the accused under this section is extended to cases where repeated demand for dowry by the husband or his family members puts an inadvertent pressure on the victim, leaving the woman with no choice but to commit suicide. This mental agony and frustration has been the result of the death of many women in India who succumb to the demands of her matrimonial home compelling her to end her life. The presumption under section 304B IPC is corroborated by Section 113B of the Evidence Act. These two section are read together in order to shift the burden on the accused to prove that the victim was not subjected to cruelty or harassment soon before her death in relation to demand for dowry. There is a long list of cases where the kin of the deceased have been brought to justice under section 304B. One such case is that of the State of Andhra Pradesh Vs. Raj Gopal Asawa and Anr3, where the accused was proved guilty beyond reasonable doubt under section 304B, IPC for driving the victim to commit suicide by subjecting her to cruelty and harassment in relation to demand of dowry soon before her death. It was observed in the case of Raja Lai Singh v. State of Jharkhand4, that the expression ‘soon before death’ appearing in the Section 304B, IPC is an elastic term. It can be referred 3State of Andhra Pradesh Vs. Raj Gopal Asawa andAnr, 2004 4 SCC 470. 4Raja Lai Singh v. State of Jharkhand,2007 III Cr. L.J. 3262 (SC). 5 as a period either immediately before death of deceased or within a few days or few weeks before death of the victim. The relevance of this term is that there must be a nexus between death of the deceased and harassment or cruelty inflicted upon the victim in relation to demand for dowry. Cruelty, dowry death and Section113B of Evidence Act, 1872 The tradition of dowry poses a continuous threat to the gender inequality in the country where the parents and family of the woman feel burdened with the huge demands made in order to marry. The man considers the woman as his property who he can mold and harass in order to fulfill his never ending greed. Section 304B, 498A, IPC read with section 113B, Evidence Act, 1872 are allied provisions dealing revolving around dowry death, cruelty and its presumption. Section 113B of the Indian Penal code, 1860 lays down a presumption to be made against the accused in cases connected with dowry death where cruelty or harassment was committed bythe accused soon before the death of the victim. This section is significant in terms of its limited scope for the accused to escape causing dowry death. However, in order to constitute an offence under this section, it is important that cruelty or harassment in relation to demand of dowry is established, the death of the victim has been the result of such cruelty and such cruelty must be caused soon before the death of the victim. Validity of marriage Marriage in India is considered to be a holy sacrament, union of two souls who come together for mutual companionship and procreation. The Indian Penal Code 1860, and the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955(HMA)prohibits bigamy under section 494 IPC and Section 17 of HMA respectively. These provisions make the second marriage voidif it takes place during the lifetime of the wife or husband. The whole premises of the respondent in the present case was that the marriage of the appellant and the respondent was invalid and hence the aforementioned sections wont be applicable. The prosecution had failed to establish that the respondent’s first marriage had been dissolved. The Supreme court placed reliance on many precedents to explain the presumption of a validity of marriage. It stated that when there is a celebration of marriage and all necessary rites and ceremonies have been carried out, it is a marriage in fact, therefore in the absence of a proof of such marriage a presumption arises as to marriage in law. In the case of Inderun Valungypooly v. Ramaswamy5, the court stated 5Inderun Valungypooly v. Ramaswamy,1869 (13) MIA 141. 6 that once marriage in fact has been established, there would be a favourable presumption of marriage in law. In the case of Sastry Velaider v. Sembicutty6where there is evidence that a man and woman have lived together as husband and wife, until otherwise proved as contrary, the law will presume that they were living together in consequence of a valid marriage and not in a state of concubinage. Interpretation of statute: There are 4 main rules of interpretation that the courts rely on. These include the literal rule, mischief rule, golden rule and the harmonious rule interpretation. Through these rules the courts have been able to deliver fruitful judgments which make them landmark in the true spirit of law. It becomes imperative for the judiciary to interpret the law to understand the true object of the legislation in situations where injustice is caused. The judiciary has successfully tried to interpret the provisions in a way that is favourable to the parties to the matter and the society at large. In the present case the court felt the need to interpret the expression “husband” beyond its literal meaning to attain the object of curbing the social evil of dowry in the society. The Court laid emphasis on the purpose of enactment of the legislation. It was made to protect the women cruelty and dowry death and not to shelter the vey perpetrators that were responsible for this offence. It stated that is the language of a legislation is vague or imprecise then they cannot confine the meaning of the words or phrases to its literal interpretation. The Supreme Court placed reliance in several cases to emphasize on the need of interpretation of statute. In the case of Kehar Singh v. State (Delhi Admn.)7the Court stated that it is the paramount duty of the legislature to give a rational meaning to the words, sections and provisions where such words, sections or provisions are ambiguous, uncertain and dubious in nature. The court attempts to examine the act as a whole and the necessity behind the construction of the Act without separating any provisions from its legislative framework. Further, the provisions are read in such a manner so as to decipher the motive behind the Act so as to make a coherent and consistent interpretation of the provisions in question and to avoid any undesirable consequences. 6Sastry Velaider v. Sembicutty,1881 (6) AC 686. 7Kehar Singh v. State (Delhi Admn.), AIR 1988 SC 1883 7 where is the eradicating social evil is in question. The court explained this through the case of Smt. Yamunabai Anantrao Adhav v. Anantrao Shivram Adhav and Anr,12where the marriage of the woman was proved to be null and void under section 5 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. Sheclaimed right to maintenance, a civil right of the wife under section 125 of CRPC, 1973. However, it was rejected on the ground of not fulfillment of necessary conditions under section 5 of the Hindu Marriage Act,1955. The supreme court stated that the provisions and legislations that are specifically enacted to effectuate a public purpose must be read with realism and not merely on technical lines. A person cannot enter into a marital relationship or arrangement with the woman, harass her for dowry to fulfill his greed and then escape punishment under the pretext of calling the marriage as invalid in law. Such interpretation and approach towards these specific legislations would encourage harassment and destroy the purpose of their enactment. The court ruled and stated; “The expression “husband” covers a person who enters into a marital relationship and under the colour of such proclaimed or feigned status of husband subjects the woman concerned to cruelty in the manner provided under Section 498-A, whatever be the legitimacy of the marriage itself for the limited purpose of Section 498-A.”. The court further explained that even though the expression ‘husband’ would include those who cohabit with the woman and perform the role and status of the husband. Thus there exists no ground to exclude them from being covered under the purview of sections 498A, 304B of IPC. Including them would serve the legislative intent. SUGGESTIONS The Supreme Court’s interpretation of the word “husband” has succeeded in giving a new dimension to the section 498A and 304B of the IPC. This has helped to further women safety and left little scope for the perpetrators to escape. The impact of this judgment has broadened the scope of applicability of this section by making the husband liable irrespective the legitimacy of the marriage which is termed to be irrelevant. The Apex court has put a great deal of confidence in the applicability of this provision to further the protection of women in the society. However, the supreme court’s interpretation 12Smt. Yamunabai Anantrao Adhav v. Anantrao Shivram Adhav and Anr,AIR 1988 SC 644. 10 of the word “husband” within the meaning of Section 498A and 304B of IPC was applied ineffectivelyn a recent judgment of the Kerala High Court. In the case of Unnikrishnan v. State of Kerala13the married persons did not perform certain rites and ceremonies in order to be legally married and started living together as husband and wife. The court ruled that the parties were not married to each other in the eyes of law and were in a live in relationship. Thus an unfavourable judgement was passed, stating that a woman in a live-in relationship was not entitled to file a complaint under section 498A, IPC. This view of the high court subdues the importance of this judgment in the light of sections 498A and 304B IPC. The court suggested to include within the meaning of the word husband any person who proclaims or feigns himself to be the husband of the victim, perform the roles and duties of a husband, cohabits with the woman and harasses her so as to broaden the definition of husband and leave very little or no scope for the perpetrators of this crime. However, the Kerala High Court’s judgment defeats the very purpose of this liberal interpretation. Live in relationships are very much a marital arrangement that two people share. They share the same right and responsibilities as that of a husband and wife. Woman cohabiting in a live in relationship should have an equivalent protection under sections 498A and 304B as that given to a woman tied by a valid marriage. REFERENCES 1. Reema Aggarwal v. Anupam, 2004 Cr LJ 892 (SC). 2. Ramnarayan & Ors v. State of M.P, 1998(3)Crimes 147 M.P 3. The State of Andhra Pradesh Vs. Raj Gopal Asawa and Anr, 2004 4 SCC 470 4. Raja Lai Singh v. State of Jharkhand, 2007 III Cr. L.J. 3262 (SC). 5. Inderun Valungypooly v. Ramaswamy, 1869 (13) MIA 141. 6. Sastry Velaider v. Sembicutty, 1881 (6) AC 686. 7. Kehar Singh v. State (Delhi Admn.), AIR 1988 SC 1883 8. District Mining Officer v. Tata Iron & Steel Co, JT 2001 (6) SC 183 9. Reserve Bank of India v. Peerless General Finance and Investment Co. Ltd. and others, 1987 (1) SCC 424 13Unnikrishnan v. State of Kerala,2017 SCC 12064. 11 10. Seaford Court Estates Ltd. v. Asher, (1949) 2 All ER 155 (CA) 11. Bhaurao Shankar Lokhande & Anr vs State Of Maharashtra & Anr, 1965 AIR 1564 12. Smt. Yamunabai Anantrao Adhav v. Anantrao Shivram Adhav and Anr, AIR 1988 SC 644 13. Unnikrishnan v. State of Kerala, 2017 SCC 1206 ABOUT THE AUTHOR I am a final year law student at Amity Law School, Noida. I have a good academic record and have been an active participant in moot court competitions and paper presentation. I have also maintained a good academic record throughout my law school journey. I have profound interest in the field of Arbitration Law and Intellectual Property Law. I aim to pursue my career in Litigation. 12