Misuse of IPC behind rise in crime against women’
Ajay Panicker

New Delhi, January 7: COMMISSIONER of Police Ajai Raj Sharma today said that there have been cases of women and their family misusing sections of the Indian Penal Code which deal with crime against women.

Sharma, at the annual press conference, said the reason for the sharp rise in various crimes registered by the Crime Against Women (CAW) Cell of the police during 2001 may have been instances of such misuse.



According to the Delhi Police records, the number of dowry-related cases (under Section 406 of the IPC) registered till December 15,2001, had doubled when compared to the same time last year. Likewise, 1,158 cases of cruelty by husband or in-laws were recorded this year as against 947 last year. The number of kidnapped or abducted women stood at 1,015 this year against 964 cases last year.

Even other crimes against women have decreased only marginally this time around. For instance, cases registered under Dowry Prohibition Act were seven as against nine last year.

A serious debate occurred between police officials reportedly over Section 498(A) of the IPC, which states: ‘‘The husband or the relative of the husband... who subjects woman to cruelty shall be punished with imprisonment...’’.

According to Sharma, the section has been misused against the husband and his family on many occasions. ‘‘In certain cases, we can’t help registering a case. It is up to the society to refrain from such acts,’’ he said.

Such aberrations notwithstanding, the general feeling among the police officers who have been dealing with crime against women is that many women continue to suffer in Delhi. An official said that the final figures of crime against women were recorded after active counselling by the staff of the CAW Cell during which many cases were amicably settled.

‘‘In 2001, more than 1,000 cases of marital discord and dowry-related harassment were disposed off during negotiations and counselling by CAW. There are many borderline cases who are amenable to counselling and suggestions. So these are sorted out,’’ said a senior police official.

However, these were genuine cases of discord. But in those cases where attitudes have hardened, reconciliations become difficult. ‘‘The first effort of the police should be that of counselling. If differences still persist, then cases are registered,’’ said the official, adding that police are helpless even if they know that the case being registered is an attempt at falsely implicating the husband


HC: Wife can't use failed marriage to harass in-laws

Abhinav Garg | TNN

New Delhi: Dismayed by the increasing misuse of anti-dowry laws, the Delhi high court has observed that failed marriages are ''not a crime'' and berated the tendency by women to see souring of matrimony as valid ground to get even with the husband and in-laws or to extract
money.


''A failed marriage is not a crime. However, provisions of section 498-A (cruelty by in-laws or husband) are being used to convert failed marriages into a crime and people are using this as a tool to extract as much monetary benefit as possible,'' Justice S N Dhingra said on Thursday while acquitting the husband, in laws and 'jethani' of a woman who had alleged that they poured kerosene on her and set her on fire due to her inability to get dowry or secure an employment for her husband.

''It must be acknowledged that marriages do fail and there is a mismatch not only in an arranged union but even in love marriages, which is discovered during the continuation of married life,'' the
judge remarked as it turned out that the harassment charge was slapped by the wife because she was unhappy with her husband's unemployment and a life of penury.


While hearing the case, Justice Dhingra found that the complainant, Veena, had in her statement to the SDM immediately after the purported incident, stated that she had accidentally burnt herself and absolved her husband's family of any harassment charge. But two days later, on
May 11, 2002, the woman's father complained to the SDM that her daughter was being ''mistreated'' by her inlaws for not bringing enough dowry. He also accused them of harassing his daughter because her family had not been able to get the son-in-law a job.


Later, Veena too changed her stance and alleged that her inlaws had tried to burn her alive.
Cautioning the police and trial courts against ''false statements'' by dowry harassment Complainants, the court said, ''The investigating agency in such cases must collect all circumstantial and other evidence on claims made by the complainant...the police do not verify any circumstantial evidence nor do they collect any other proof about the claims made by the complainant...this is resulting into gross misuse of the provisions of law.''


Justice Dhingra had some advice for trial courts too. He asked them to ''guard themselves against being swayed by emotions''. The court reversed the trial court's order sentencing the husband, Gyan Prakash, Jeevani Devi (mother-in-law) and four other family members to two years imprisonment for harassing the complainant and attempting to murder her five years ago.
''It is an unfortunate case where the complainant, by making a false statement, implicated the entire family,'' the judge observed after finding that Veena's complaint contradicted the medical
testimony.