ananya_sakpal
Forum Replies Created
- Replies
Sec 498 A of IPC was introduced in the year 1983 to protect married women from being subjected to cruelty by the husband or his relatives. A punishment extending to 3 years and fine has been prescribed. The offense under Section 498A is cognizable, non-compoundable, and non-bailable. The expression “cruelty” has been defined in wide terms to include inflicting physical or mental harm to the body or health of the woman and indulging in acts of harassment 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 the latter limb of the section. Creating a situation driving the woman to commit suicide is also one of the ingredients of “cruelty”.
Cases under 498 A are completely different and distinct from matrimonial petitions like divorce. Matrimonial petitions are civil, while in 498 A if a person is accused of an offense, which if established in court, can get the person punished. Regardless of the fact who has filed the suit of divorce, if the prosecution succeeds in establishing that the husband has committed the offense u/s 498 A, then he would be prosecuted and punished for it, despite if he had filed the divorce petition first. Therefore, yes, a complaint u/s 498 A can be filed after the divorce.
Many instances have come to light where the complaints are not bona fide and have been filed with oblique motive. In such cases, the acquittal of the accused does not in all cases wipe out the ignominy suffered during and before trial. Sometimes adverse media coverage adds to the misery. By misuse of the provision, new legal terrorism can be unleashed. The provision is intended to be used as a shield and not as an assassin’s weapon. However, a mere possibility of abuse of a legal provision does not invalidate it. Section 498-A is constitutional, Sushil Kumar Sharma v. Union of India, [2005] 6 SCC 281.The crime of Perjury crosses the definitions between substantive and procedural law, challenging both crime and the judicial system. Perjury in simple words can be defined as an offence of lying when you are under oath. So, Perjury as a crime is not stated in the IPC. The crime referred to is “False evidence”. Section 191 of the IPC deals with false evidence which deals with making a false statement under oath which he believes to be false and still makes it knowing its falsehood.
The Punishment in Section 193 of the IPC would extend till seven years with fine. Intentional fabrication of false evidence would further increase the term for another three years with fine,
False evidence would also be punished if one uses corrupt or false or fabricated evidence, with knowledge of it being false. Such an Act would be punished under Section 196 of the IPC.
Section 195 is the inherent power of the Court to make a complaint it case of false evidentiary document or evidence presented before the Court. The same should interfere in the administration of justice. The section authorizes a preliminary enquiry as it thinks necessary and then a subsequent complaint can be made under Section 340 of the CrPC.
Section 344 of CrPC: This section introduces an additional alternative procedure to punish perjury by the very Court before which it is committed in place of old Section 479 A which did not have the desired effect to eradicate the evils of perjury.
The Best Bakery case took place in Vadodara, Gujarat. Around 1000 rioters attacked the bakery which was also the residence of late Habibullah Sheikh at midnight and killed the family as well as the workers. Zaheera was a witness in the given case however; she later said she had lied in her statements due to threats. She was therefore said have been a hostile witness and charges of perjury were pressed against her.
The procedure for perjury is complex and in India, it is seldom used. Witnesses also turn hostile during examinations. Threats and inducements are the major causes of Perjury. There is no adequate legal force to protect the witnesses. However, protection of witnesses constitutes one of the Fundamental Principles of Criminal Law.
Perjury not also affects the instant case but also adversely affects the administration of justice where truth is compromised with. Apart from wrongful conviction and makes a mockery of the Criminal Justice system. Indian courts don not take serious actions against people alleged of perjury. The punishment or sanction for perjury is less in India compared to other countries. In New York, for instance, the sentence served is of 15 years. It is essential to tackle the problem as it affects adversely the very foundation of the Criminal Justice System.
The Malimath Committee report on Criminal Justice System deals with the offence of Perjury and how the same can be brought under check.The Act lays down a uniform and comprehensive system of inheritance, and applies to persons governed by both the Mitakshara and the Dayabhaga schools. It also applies to those previously governed by the Marumakkatayam, Aliyasantana and Nambudri systems of Hindu Law. When a male Hindu dies, having an interest in a coparcenary property, his interest would devolve by survivorship upon the surviving members of the Coparcenary. This rule has now been abrogated by the 2005 Amendment of the Mitakshara (Consolidation) Act. The Act provides for the abolition of two systems of inheritance to separate or self-acquired property of a male dying intestate and replaces them with one uniform system in respect of each class of property held by a male who dies intestate (see Sec. 8 of the Act). Before the passing of the Act, the Mitakshara School recognized three classes of heirs. Under the Act, the classification of heirs is abolished and the Act divides heirs into four classes or categories.
The Hindu women’s limited estate is abolished by the Act, and any property possessed by a female Hindu, howsoever acquired, is to be held by her as her absolute property. She is given full power to deal with it and dispose it off by will as she likes. The Act lays down a uniform scheme of succession to the property of a female Hindu who dies intestate after the commencement of the act. Succession to stridhan (woman’s property) previously varied according as a woman was married or unmarried, and if married, according to the form of marriage. Sec. 28 of the Act lays down that no person shall be disqualified from succeeding to any property on the ground of any disease, defect or deformity.
Under the texts of the Dharma shastras as interpreted by the Courts, certain defects, deformities and diseases excluded an heir from inheritance. Prior to the passing of the Act, according to the Mitakashara Law, no coparcener could dispose of by will, his undivided coparcenary interest, even if the other coparceners consented to the disposition. This rule is now abrogated by the Explanation to Sec. 30, which expressly lays down that such interest is to be deemed to be property capable of being disposed of by a Hindu under a will. The Act has made the mode of succession plain and simple, and several doubts cast by conflicting decisions of the Privy Council and the various High Courts are now removed. The Act is indeed characteristic of an age which is one of great ideals and fast-changing theories.
