Burden of Proof
When news channels report few ongoing cases they might have used a word “Burden of Proof “or “Proving the guilt beyond reasonable doubt” etc., though it might sound like plain English, they are indeed terms in legal parlance. Our interest here is confined to “Burden of Proof”. Which is nothing but if I claim that Utkarsh caused a severe injury to me and I want the court to punish him for that, I have to prove that Utkarsh did hurt me beyond a reasonable doubt, i.e., burden of proof lies with me. If not proved he can walk free.
But do you know there is a travesty of justice (we can call it) when it comes to the fact that the court can resort to certain assumptions, while dealing with offenses against state and dowry related death and/or Marital related offenses. But yes we are not going to talk about offences against state for now.
113 A - Presumption as to abetment of suicide by a married woman
“ When the question is whether the commission of suicide by a woman had been abetted by her husband or any relative of her husband and it is shown that she had committed suicide within a period of seven years from the date of her marriage and that her husband or such relative of her husband had subjected her to cruelty, the court may presume, having regard to all the other circumstances of the case, that such suicide had been abetted by her husband or by such relative of her husband “
When the co-relation between death and cruel treatment is not established how can we assume that specific act of cruelty has abetted the suicide?
Stand taken by the trial court in this case with respect to 113A is telling. Where the appellants ie., those who are accused of wife’s death were asked to prove the innocence, giving much primacy to 113A. This proposition to me sounded like a stunning contradiction. I agree with the fact that the courts have full discretion interpreting the statutes and also can set the precedents. But in the first instance itself equal opportunity must be provided to the accused thereby in a way giving a meaning to the principles of Natural justice if not applying the maxim of prosecution to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt instead relying on assumptions. Yes. I agree facts and circumstances of each case would differ. But that should not come in a way to uphold equality before law.
Though Art: 14 of Indian constitution talks about Equality before law, Art: 15(3) mandates or talks about showing leniency towards women and children who in Indian society are considered as oppressed. And even in cases of adultery which is offense as per Sec: 497 IPC, leniency is shown towards women.
And another provision which has a scope for abuse is 113B of Indian Evidence Act – Presumption as to dowry death which must be repealed. It is said that these specific provisions were included in 1983; it is 30 years since then. And this is mainly abused by literate urban women to harass men. And the subordinate courts are left with no choice but to either follow the precedents set by the superior courts or follow the statute literally.
Just like Sec: 498a of IPC some of the provisions such mentioned are abused frequently. And the abuse is equated with legal terrorism by the Supreme Court recently.
Way Out?
In that last 30 years the situation of women has changed especially with urban class. It will be meaningful to repeal the assumptions from Indian Evidence Act and make it even, ie., the burden of proof. Probably there should be a provision for a woman who claims discrimination shall go ahead for a lawyer of her choice, not necessarily through legal aid stationed in High courts but anyone else (emphasis added). And state shall bear the expenses.
Views expressed here are personal
No comments:
Post a Comment