தாலிக்கயிறு இந்தியக் கணவர்களுக்குத் தூக்குக்கயிறு

இளைஞர்களே,

இந்தியாவில் திருமணம் செய்தால் பொய் வரதட்சணை வழக்கில் சிக்குவதோடு மட்டுமல்லாமல் மற்றொரு துன்பமும் உங்களுக்குக் காத்திருக்கிறது. அதுதான் IPC 304B என்று சொல்லப்படும் வரதட்சணைக் கொலை.

IPC Section 304-B "dowry death"

1. The death of a woman must have been caused by burn or bodily injury or otherwise than under normal circumstance;
2. Such death must have occurred within seven years of her marriage;
3. Soon before her death, the woman must have been subjected to cruelty or harassment by her husband or by relatives of her husband;
4. Such cruelty or harassment must be for or in connection with demand for dowry;
5. Such cruelty or harassment is when to have been meted out to the woman soon before her death.

இந்த சட்டப்பிரிவின் கீழ் வழக்குப்பதிவு செய்ய மேற்கண்ட நிகழ்வுகள் நடந்திருக்கவேண்டும் என்பது சட்டப்புத்தகத்தில் சொல்லப்பட்ட சட்டம். ஆனால் நடைமுறை சட்டத்தில் திருமணமாகி 7 ஆண்டுகளுக்குள் மனைவி இறந்திருந்தால் உடனடியாக கணவன் கைது செய்யப்படுவான்.

இதுபோன்ற அநியாய கைது நடவடிக்கைக்கு துணைபோவது யார் தெரியுமா. பெண்ணின் பெற்றோர்கள். தங்களது பெண்ணின் காதல் விஷயத்தை மறைத்து திருமணம் செய்ததை மறைப்பதற்காக அப்பாவிக் கணவன் மீது வரதட்சணைக் கொலை என்று பழிபோட்டுவிடுவார்கள். அல்லது பெண்ணிற்கு வேறு ஏதாவது வியாதி அல்லது வேறு காரணங்கள் இவற்றை மறைக்க பெண் தற்கொலை செய்துகொண்டால் உடனே கணவன் மீது வரதட்சணைக் கொலை வழக்குப் பதிவு செய்யப்படும்.

இது தான் அப்பாவிக் கணவர்களுக்கெதிராக இந்தியாவில் நடைமுறையில் நடந்துவரும் சட்டரீதியான கொடுமை. இதை நீதிமன்றங்கள் பலமுறை எடுத்துக்காட்டியிருக்கிறது.

திருமணம் முடிந்து 7 ஆண்டுகளுக்குள் மனைவி இயற்கையாக இறந்துவிட்டால்கூட அது கணவனும் அவனது குடும்பமும் சேர்ந்து செய்த வரதட்சணைக் கொலை என்று கருதப்படும். உடனே RDO விசாரணை செய்து அறிக்கை கொடுக்கவேண்டும். அதுவே திருமணமாகி அடுத்த நாளே கணவன் கொலை செய்யப்பட்டால்கூட அது இயற்கையான மரணமாகக் கருதப்படும். யாரும் கேட்கக்கூட மாட்டார்கள். இதுதான் கணவனுக்கு இந்த சமுதாயத்தில் உள்ள மரியாதை.

இப்படித்தான் நடைமுறையில் சட்டங்கள் கையாளப்படுகிறது. மனைவி இறந்தவுடன் அவரது பெற்றோர்கள் உடனடியாக கணவன் மற்றும் அவனது குடும்பத்தார் வரதட்சணைக் கேட்டு தங்களது மகளை கொலை செய்துவிட்டதாகப் புகார் கொடுத்துவிடுவார்கள். காவல்துறையும் உடனடியாக உங்கள் மீது IPC- 498A, 304B போன்ற பிரிவுகளில் வழக்குப் பதிவு செய்து சிறையில் தள்ளிவிடுவார்கள். 304Bயில் சிக்கினால் ஜாமின் கிடைப்பது மிகவும் கடினம். காவல்துறை புலன் விசாரணை செய்யமாட்டார்களா? என்று நீங்கள் யோசிக்கலாம். அப்படி ஒன்று நடப்பதாக இருந்தால் இதுபோன்ற பதிவு இங்கே எழுதுவதற்கு அவசியமே ஏற்பட்டிருக்காது.

இந்தியாவில் கீழ்நிலை நீதிமன்றங்களில் நீதி எப்படி கிடைத்துக் கொண்டிருக்கிறது என்று அனைவருக்கும் தெரியும். அதனால் நீங்கள் நிரபராதி என்று நிரூபித்து வெளியே வர உயர்நீதிமன்றம் வரை செல்லவேண்டியிருக்கும். அதற்குள் உங்களது வாழ்க்கை தலைகீழாக மாறியிருக்கும்.

அதனால் இதுபோன்ற சிக்கல்களில் மாட்டிக்கொள்ளாமல் இருக்க வேறுநாடுகளில் திருமணம் செய்துகொள்ளுங்கள். வேறு எந்த நாட்டிலும் இதுபோன்ற கண்மூடித்தனமான சட்ட நடைமுறைகள் கிடையாது. அதனால் இந்தியாவில் திருமணம் என்ற தகனமேடைக்குள் நுழைந்து பொய் வரதட்சணை வழக்குகள் என்ற தீயில் உங்கள் குடும்பத்தாரை உயிரோடு பொசுக்கிவிடாதீர்கள்.

பெண் இறந்துவிட்டால் அதற்குக் கணவன்தான் காரணம் என்று இந்தியாவில் ஒரு மனப்பான்மை இருக்கிறது. இதற்கு தூபம் போடுவதுதான் ஒழுங்குமுறையற்ற சட்டங்களும் நேர்மையற்ற விசாரணைகளும். இதை டில்லி உயர்தீநிமன்றம் படம் பிடித்துக்காட்டியுள்ளது. நீதிமன்றங்கள் உங்களுக்கு இந்த உண்மையை சொல்லமுடியுமே தவிர நீங்கள் இதில் சிக்குவதிலிருந்து உங்களைக் காப்பாற்ற முடியாது என்பதை மனதில் வைத்துக்கொள்ளுங்கள்.

சமீபத்தில் டில்லி உயர்நீதிமன்றம் சொல்லியிருப்பது

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

Crl. Rev. P. No.555/2003 Narender Singh Arora v State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi) & Ors.

Date of Order: September 01 , 2010
Crl. Revision Petition No.555/2003 01.09.2010 Narender Singh Arora ...Petitioner
Versus
State (Govt. of NCT Delhi) & Ors. ...Respondents

JUSTICE SHIV NARAYAN DHINGRA

JUDGMENT

1. This petition under Section 397/401 read with Section 482 of Cr.P.C has been preferred by the revision petitioner for setting aside the judgment and order dated 22nd March, 2003 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, New Delhi in Sessions Case No.104 of 2001 whereby the learned Sessions Judge acquitted the accused persons of charge under Section 498A/304B 302 read with Section 34 IPC.

2. Brief facts relevant for purpose of deciding this revision petition are that the petitioner’s daughter Mrs. Arveen was married to Mr. Paramjit Singh Rana (respondent no.2) in 1984. She delivered a child on 26th August, 1987. She committed suicide by hanging herself from ceiling fan with the help of a chunni on 23rd November 1988. A case under Section 302/498A/304B read with Section 34 IPC was registered against the husband, father in law, brother in law and sister in law. When trial started, father of the deceased through State got appointed Special Public Prosecutor in this case and Ms. Rani Jethmalani a known criminal lawyer and Mr. P.K Dey her Junior conducted the prosecution case.

3. The learned trial court came to conclusion that it was not a case of dowry death and no case under Section 498A/304B or 302 IPC was made out against the accused persons. Dissatisfied with the judgment, this revision petition has been preferred on the ground that the judgment passed by learned trial court was based upon misreading of evidence and misinterpretation of facts and law. It is stated that there was sufficient evidence on record by way of testimony of PW-1, PW-2, PW-9, PW-11, PW-15 and PW-16 to show that the deceased was harassed for dowry and it was a case of dowry death. It is also submitted that the trial court wrongly observed that the cruelty in the form of beatings was not there. The cruelty could not only in the form of beatings but mental cruelty by way of taunts, harassment, etc was sufficient to bring home offence under Section 498A IPC. The trial court did not consider the evidence in proper perspective.

4. The counsel for the revision petitioner also submitted that the trial court did not consider that it was a case of murder, if not of dowry death and should have convicted the accused persons for murder.

5. This case is a reflection of mentality which is now taking grip of parents of a deceased wife in the criminal cases. Whenever a woman dies an unnatural death within seven years of her marriage at in-laws’ house, whatever be the cause of death, the in-laws must be hanged. This case also shows how truth is losing significance because of the ego of the litigants to see that in-laws should be hanged.

6. Suicide is a known phenomenon of human nature. Suicides are committed by living human beings for various reasons, some are not able to bear the normal stresses which are common in life. Some are not able to cope up with the circumstances in which they are placed. Some commit suicide because of frustration of not achieving the desired goals. There are many cases where students commit suicide because they failed to achieve certain percentage of marks. Some commit suicide because they are not able to retain top position, some commit suicide because they are not able to cope with the demands of life. Some commit suicide because they suffer sudden loss, some commit suicide out of fear of being caught. There are various reasons for which suicides are committed by men and women. All suicides are unnatural deaths. Suicide is a complex phenomenon. One, who commits suicide, is not alive to disclose as to what was going on in his or her mind when he or she committed suicide. There is no presumption that every suicide committed by a married woman in her in-laws’ house or at her parents’ house has to be because she was suffering harassment at the hands of her husband or her in-laws.

7. Normally in-laws are convicted on the testimonies of parents of the girl who, in a fit of anger or because they had lost their daughter, are not prepared to believe that their daughter could commit suicide for any other reason. Fortunately, in this case, the deceased was in the habit of writing letter to her parents when she was living at her in-laws’ house and to her husband when she was living in her parents’ house and these letters were produced before the trial court. The trial court went through these letters and after going through all the letters written by the deceased, preferred to believe the circumstances prevalent between deceased and her in-laws, as reflected by the letters instead of believing the testimony of father of the girl and other relatives of the girl who wanted the court to believe that it was a dowry death. The learned trial court extensively quoted these letters. A perusal of these letters would show that the deceased was in the habit of writing every minuscule thing happening in the family of her in-laws to her father. She was in love with her father and in her letters gave details of happenings in the family of her in-laws to her father. She had written to the extent that she had to go to market by Rickshaw and that her in-laws were not well-off. She had written how her bhabi used to behave cleverly and wanted to separate from the house, how her bhabi used to behave; how her father-in-law used to behave, who were the servants in the family, how they used to cook, what her bhabhi did at the dinner table, how she managed to take bigger share of chicken and all trivial things. The learned trial court concluded that girl who was writing to her father about each and every circumstance of her matrimonial home to such minute details, could not have held back any information from her father if she was harassed on account of dowry or any dowry demand had been made to her. I consider that the trial court rightly put greater reliance on the letters written by the deceased right up to the time of her death to her parents and rightly rejected the oral testimony of her father and other family members who wanted the court to believe that she was being harassed on account of dowry demands. It is well known maxim that men may speak lies but the circumstances do not. The letters written by the deceased is her own testimony in respect of what kind of life she was leading. This testimony of her is unimpeachable and most reliable testimony because it was given by her when there was no shadow of any litigation between the two and relations were normal. The testimony given by her father is not normal testimony.

Her father and other family members who deposed in the court testified after death of Arveen and their testimony is coloured with the loss they suffered due to sudden death of the daughter little realizing that she committed suicide not because of dowry demands but because of her fragile and sensitive nature which is reflected from the letters written by her. The letters reflect that she was in deep love with her husband, her husband was also in deep love with her. It looks she was not getting all those facilities at her in-laws’ house to which she was used to and accustomed at her parents’ house. The letters do not reflect any kind of ill-treatment being meted out to her either at the hands of her husband or at the hands of her in-laws. The letters only reflect the usual day-to-day hiccups which a newly married couple has to undergo. I consider that the learned trial court relied upon the best evidence in order to come to a just and right conclusion whether it was a case of dowry death or it was a case of simple suicide and rightly acquitted the accused persons for the offences under Section 304B/302/498A read with Section 34 IPC.

8. The counsel for the petitioner argued that the trial court did not look into the theory of murder of the girl though charge of murder was there. In this case, the death had taken place by hanging. There were ligature marks around the neck of deceased. It is argued by the counsel for the petitioner that the ligature mark was continuous on the neck without a break and if it were a case of hanging, the ligature mark would not have been continuous and there would have been a break in the ligature mark. It is submitted that it was a case of manual strangulation and a case of murder. This theory was also examined by the learned trial court. The trial court had referred to medical jurisprudence and drawn a table showing differences between a suicidal death by hanging and a homicidal death by strangulation and came to a conclusion that there was no evidence of a homicidal death. The learned trial court also noted that to the doctor who conducted postmortem, no questions were put suggesting that this was a case of murder and not a suicidal death. Even otherwise, except the ligature marks, there was no other external injuries, no mark of struggle and no other evidence to show that it was a homicidal death. To my view, the learned trial court rightly came to conclusion that it was a suicidal death. I find no force in this revision petition. The revision petition is hereby dismissed.

SHIV NARAYAN DHINGRA, J
September 01, 2010

இந்திய உச்சநீதிமன்றம் சுட்டிக்காட்டியிருக்கும் தீர்ப்பு

In Kans Raj vs. State of Punjab and others AIR 2000 SC 2324 the Hon’ble Supreme Court , inter alia, observed as under:-

“In cases where such accusations are made, the overt acts attributed to persons other than husband are required to be proved beyond reasonable doubt. By mere conjectures and implications such relations cannot be held guilty for the offence relating to dowry deaths. A tendency has, however, developed for roping in all relations of the in-laws of the deceased wives in the matters of dowry deaths which, if not discouraged, is likely to affect the case of the prosecution even against the real culprits. In their over enthusiasm and anxiety to seek conviction for maximum people, the parents of the deceased have been found to be making efforts for involving other relations which ultimately weaken the case of the prosecution even against the real accused as appears to have happened in the instant case.”