ARNESH KUMAR V STATE OF BIHAR
INTRODUCTION:
The Indian Parliament has
passed a number of laws to uphold women's rights and banish all types of
cruelty to women. The National Commission for Women Act of 1990, the Protection
of Women from Domestic Violence Act of 2005, the Indecent Representation of
Women (Prohibition) Act of 1986, the Dowry Prohibition Act of 1961, the
Indecent Representation of Women (Prohibition and Redress) Act of 2013, the
Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redress)
Act of 2013, and the Criminal Amendment Acts of 2013 and 2018 are some of the
significant pieces of legislation.
Section 498A and Section
304B on dowry deaths were passed in 1983 to address the menace of escalating
dowry deaths and in-law violence against married women.[1]
In order to stop the misuse
of the dowry statute, the Supreme Court asked the government to alter it in
2010. Many in India believe that the dowry rules, in particular section 498A of
the Indian Penal Code, are prone to abuse due to police arrests made on a
routine basis. The opposition to these laws has been intensifying.
Huge amounts of dowry are
sometimes asserted in 498a suits without any support. The wife of a household
with limited income may claim that she paid crores of dollars in dowry, and
because this is a cognizable offence, police are required to file a report.
Additionally, it's rare that the wife's or her parents' financial capacity or
the source of the assets are ever investigated.
The Supreme Court of India
affirmed Section 498A IPC in 2005 after it was contested[2].
In Preeti Gupta & Others v. State of Jharkhand & Others (2010), the
Supreme Court discussed the abuse of anti-dowry laws and suggested a more
thorough probe.[3]
A committee led by Bhagat Singh Koshyari was established by the Indian
parliament in response to the Supreme Court's findings.
Criminal Law 2nd Amendment
Act added Section 498-A to the Indian Penal Code, which reads: "Husband or
relatives of the husband of a woman subjecting her to cruelty. Whoever being
the husband or relative of the husband of such women subject such women to
cruelty shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to
three years and shall also be liable to fine."
Section 498-A of the Indian
Penal Code provides the following basic ingredients:
1) A married woman
is required
2)A woman experiences abuse
or harassment
3)Such abuse and harassment
must have been committed by the husband or his family.
In order to defend women's
rights and shield them from cruelty, Section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code was
created. However, in recent times, Section 498-A has been the target of a case
of female power abuse, and it is necessary to stop women's tendencies to
involve the entire family in the crime of dowry demand.
FACTS:
The marriage between Arnesh
Kumar, the petitioner, and Sweta Kiran, the second respondent, was celebrated
on July 1, 2007. After his wife Sweta Kiran confirmed that the petitioner had
asked for or demanded dowry from her, Arnesh Kumar was detained in accordance
with Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act of 1961.
The referred-to Respondent,
i.e. Before the court, Sweta Kiran accused and made accusations that the
petitioner family had demanded Rs. 8 Lakhs, a Maruti Car, an Air Conditioner, a
Television Set, etc. When Sweta Kiran disclosed the information in the
petitioner's notice, he stood behind his family member and threatened to wed a
different woman if the request was not granted.
Petitioner sought
anticipatory bail, which was initially denied by the Court of Session and then
by the High Court, while refuting every accusation made by the respondent.
Angered by the decision to deny anticipatory relief, the petitioner filed an
appeal with the Supreme Court using a Special Leave Petition.
ISSUES INVOLVED:
1. If someone is suspected
of committing a crime that is punishable by law, is an arrest necessary as a
result of a complaint?
2. What options are there
for redress if a woman abuses section 498-A of the IPC for her own gain?
3. Should the appellant be
given bail in advance?
JUDGEMENT:
On July 2, 2014, the Supreme
Court issued guidelines for how to respond to a Special Leave Petition (SPL)
submitted by Arnesh Kumar, who contested his and his family's detention under
this law. In Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar &Anr.,[4] a
two-judge Supreme Court panel examined the application of section 41(1)(A) of
the CrPC, which directs the state to follow specific procedures before making
an arrest. The bench noted that due to the non-bailable and cognizable nature
of the statute, Section 498A has developed into a potent tool for irate wives,
leading to the detention of innocent persons without any supporting evidence.
The anti-dowry statute (Section 498A), according to the Supreme Court, is being
utilised by certain women to harass their husbands and in-laws.The police were
not allowed to make any arrests based solely on complaints by the court. The
1973 Code of Criminal Procedure's Section 41 establishes a 9-point checklist
that must be followed to determine whether an arrest is necessary, and the
court instructed the police to abide by this directive. The court further
stated that a magistrate must determine whether an arrested suspect needs to be
kept in custody for additional time.
Supreme Court issued the
following instructions for police to abide by:
1. All state governments
should give their police personnel instructions not to make arrests without
first determining whether they are necessary under the conditions outlined
above stemming from Section 41 of the Cr.PC.
2. A check list comprising
the specific subclauses listed in section 41(1)(b) should be made available to
all police officers (ii).
3. The police officer must
present the properly completed check list along with the evidence and
justification for the arrest before presenting the accused before the
magistrate for additional custody.
4. Before approving the
accused's custody, the magistrate must read the report that the police officer
submitted in accordance with the aforementioned requirements. Only after noting
that satisfaction will the magistrate approve the accused's detention.
5. Within two weeks of the
day the case was instituted, the decision not to arrest an accused must be sent
to the Magistrate with a copy to the Magistrate; this time frame may be
extended by the District Superintendent of Police for reasons that must be
stated in writing.
6. Within two weeks of the
case's initiation, the accused must get notice of their appearance under
Section 41A of the Criminal Procedure Code; however, the Superintendent of Police
for the District may grant an extension for the reasons to be recorded in
writing.
7. In addition to being
subject to departmental repercussions for disobeying the aforementioned
instructions, the concerned Police officers risk being punished for contempt of
court, which will be brought before the High Court with territorial
jurisdiction.
8. Authorizing detention
without providing the justifications specified by the relevant Judicial
Magistrate will result in departmental action by the relevant High Court.
Context of an Observation:
The Supreme Court first
emphasised the misuse of Section 498-A and made the following observations
while addressing the subject of anticipatory bail in relation to an offence
under that section of the Indian Penal Code:
6. The main goal of Section
498-A was to stop women from being harassed and treated cruelly by their
husbands and his family. Because the offence under Section 498-A is both
cognizable and non-bailable, it has earned a poor reputation as one of the
clauses that resentful women employ as weapons rather than a defence.
The easiest way to harass is
to use this clause to have the spouse and his family jailed. Many times, the
husband's bedridden grandparents and their sister, who has been overseas for
decades, are detained.
The National Crime Records
Bureau's statistics on crime in India, which were released by the Ministry of
Home Affairs, were also cited by the Supreme Court. According to the data,
1,97,762 people were detained in 2012 for violating Section 498-A of the Indian
Penal Code, 47,951 of whom were women, illustrating how the mother and sister
of the spouse may have been caught up in this crime.The percentage of charge
sheets filed for crimes under section 498-A is 93.6%, while conviction rates are
only 15%, suggesting that most cases now for trial will likely result in
acquittals.
After that, the Supreme
Court made a statement regarding arrest. The Supreme Court noted:
7. Arrest results in shame,
less freedom, and permanent scars. Lawmakers and police are both aware of it.
Lawmakers and police are at odds, and it appears that the police have not
learned the lesson contained in and reflected in the code of criminal
process.Despite sixty years of independence, it still carries a colonial
stigma; it is primarily viewed as an instrument of oppression and harassment,
and it is unquestionably not viewed favourably by the general population.
The courts have often
underlined the need for discretion when using the severe power of arrest, but
this hasn't had the desired impact. Its arrogance is greatly exacerbated by its
arrest power and the Magistracy's inability to restrain it. Additionally, one
of the profitable avenues for police corruption is the ability to make arrests.
The mentality of making one arrest first and then moving on to the rest is
abhorrent. It has developed into a useful tool for police officers who lack
emotional intelligence or behave inexplicably.
CONCLUSION:
The rights granted to women
under section 498-A of the IPC not only provided benefits for women, but are
also frequently abused today. The Court in this case not only granted bail to
the accused but also addressed the issue of unnecessary arrest by establishing
some mandatory guidelines that the Police must follow before arresting an
accused, adding to the system of checks and balances on the power of the Police
and providing relief to those who are subjected to harassment due to false
accusations. Arrest results in humiliation, restricts freedom, and leaves
permanent scars, as Court put it in elegant fashion.
[1]Vij, R. K. (3 November 2021). "On
dealing with false criminal cases". The
Hindu. Retrieved 21 November 2021.
[3]Preeti Gupta & Another v. State of Jharkhand & Another, AIR 2010 SC 3363
[4]Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar (Supreme Court of India 2014)
0 Comments