Rakesh Kumar (Software) 02 March 2015

Please guide 498a "burden of proof" in general allegations

Dear Experts,

In 498A case if the girl and her family members make so called very general and lawyer dictated allegations that after marriage she was asked to bring a lac rupees as dowry, she was beaten by all the accused and thrown out of house by the accused to bring more dowry both in the FIR as well as during the trial (since such a few one line sentences are easy to read and remember). Whether these are enough for conviction.

If YES then what is the meaning of "Bruden of Proof" since these are simple statements and not proofs and OR since the statement is being made by the girl as well as her parents and brothers hence it becomes a proof?

Since as per my understanding these are general statements and if I do cross for these than actally those cross may backfire on me, as example if I ask who asked a lac rupees or who beat her and if she mentions my name then with my cross eventually I am proving her allegations. Please guide me if I am wrong?

Also please guide me if I need to do a cross for such things?

Or in such scenario my burden would just be to proof the reasons (WHY) she has filled the case?

Rakesh

Reply Follow

3 Replies

Kappil Cchandna (Expert Bail & Criminal Defence Lawyer at Delhi Supreme Court of India) 02 March 2015

Dear, These are vague and general allegations. But in order to prove her case she will have to prove some specific allegations with proof like has she ever gone for medical or complaint the atrocity to the police or did ever make a complaint in writing to any one about it .... Specific incidents with proof are the base for 498A conviction .... Loose and vague allegations are not sufficient.... Kapil Chandna Adv 9899011450

T. Kalaiselvan, Advocate (Advocate) 05 March 2015

The case with general allegations or vague background do not persist or maintained. A very rare cases only get convicted that too if the prosecution proves the case beyond all reasonable doubts. A prudent lawyer would nullify the allegations during cross examination, so concentrate on trial.

Biswanath Roy (Advocate) 15 March 2015

The sole constituent of an offense u/s.498-A IPC is cruelty which in view of Clause (a) to Explanation to sec.498-A, means willful conduct. The word willful contemplates obstinate and deliberate behavior on the part of the offender for it to amount to cruelty. Thus mens-rea is an essential ingredient of the offense.(which were either ignored or miserably failed to prove by the prosecution during the course of evidence in most of the cases) As to the concept of cruelty as envisaged in clause (a) to Explanation of Sec.498-A IPC the Bombay High Court in the case of Madhuri Mukund Chitnis vs. Mukund Marland Chitnis (Reported in 1992,,Cr.L.J.111 (115), Bom. has opened a new dimension. It held that the fact that a married woman has been subjected to a series of malicious and vexatious litigation in which extremely hurtful and offensive accusations were leveled against her out of a sense of vindictiveness and wherein she was humiliated and tortured through the executions of search warrants and seizure of personal properties make out a clear case of cruelty and harassment punishable under section 498-A IPC.

A complainant if wants to come under the ambit of clause (b) of Explanation of sec.498-A IPC i.e., harassment she can succeed if it can be proved that there was an " unlawful demand " by the husband or any of his relations in respect of money or for some valuable security. Such demand can be proved either by adducing direct evidence or collateral evidence.. In my view in legal combating thorough knowledge in EVIDENCE ACT is inevitably needed for the Counsels.