Sunday, March 4, 2012

RAMPANT MISUSE and ABUSE OF DOWRY LAWS IPC 498A - Nisha Sharma case false on p7news on 4Mar12 with Advcate Sh Mahesh Tiwari and Jayanti Dutta, Psychologist and marriage counsellor


LEGAL TERORRISM unleashed by married women breaking families. The laws is being used by wife as weapon and being used as TOY. SCRAP or AMEND IPC 498a
Nisha Sharma case false on p7news on 04 March 2012 with SC Advcate Sh Mahesh Tiwari ji and Jayanti Dutta ji, Psychologist and marriage counsellor

‘Words not always used with criminal intent’ Bombay HC in 498a 306 aquittal

‘Words not always used with criminal intent’ Bombay HC in 498a 306 aquittal

NAGPUR: The Nagpur bench of the Bombay high court came to the rescue of a man by ruling that words spoken during a quarrel are not always uttered with a criminal intent. "Words such as 'go and die' uttered in a quarrel or on the spur of moment can't be termed as uttered with requisite mens rea (criminal intent)," ruled justice Ashok Bhangale while upholding a lower court verdict.

Bhangale dismissed the government's criminal appeal filed in 1996 against Wardha resident Vasant Chudiwale who was accused of allegedly abetting wife Maya's suicide for dowry. "There should be concrete evidence to indicate criminal intent," the court observed.

Vasant and Maya married in 1985. After a couple of years, relations between the two turned bitter. Vasant allegedly started ill-treating Maya alleging her of having an extra-marital affair with his brother-in-law Rakeshkumar.

On July 19, 1987, the couple came to the city and stayed at the residence of Maya's uncle Madanchand. During her stay, Maya confided with her uncle about the alleged ill-treatment meted out to her by her husband.

Three days later, Maya committed suicide by pouring kerosene on her body and setting herself ablaze. In her dying declaration, she blamed Vasant. Tehsil police chargesheeted Vasant for offences punishable under sections 498A and 306 of the IPC. The Nagpur sessions judge convicted him on both counts and sentenced him to one year of rigorous imprisonment.

Vasant challenged the order before the extra joint district judge through an appeal and got respite. The state challenged this order in the high court through a criminal appeal. The deceased's uncle also filed a criminal revision application against Vasant. The state contended that in her dying declaration, Maya blamed Vasant for taunting her about her alleged extra marital affair with Rakeshkumar.

"To constitute the offence under abetment to suicide, there must be evidence to prove that the accused instigated the person," the court observed. Before dismissing both the cases, justice Bhangale stated that the deceased's dying declaration does not mean an offence punishable under section 306.

Full text of judgment available @