2nd Year B.A. LL. B (Div.

-D and E) – Semester-IV (2022)

1st -Internal Assessment

Law of Crimes II (Criminal Procedure Code -I)

Case Analysis

Topic
RAJESH SHARMA VS STATE OF UP 

NAME: Vaibhavi Agrawal

DIVISION: D

PRN: 21010125386

COURSE: BA LL.B. (H)

BATCH: 2021-2026
 RAJESH SHARMA VS STATE OF UP
A Case Commentary

Jurisdiction: In The Supreme Court of India

Rajesh Sharma & Ors. Vs The State of

Name of the Case:
Uttar Pradesh & Anr.

Petitioner: Rajesh Sharma & Ors.

Respondent: The State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr.

Hon’ble Mr. Justice A.K Goel and Mr.

Bench:
Justice U.U Lalit

Judgement Date: 27 July, 2017

Citation: 2017 SCC 821

Statutes Referred- 
 Section 498A and Section 323 of Indian Penal Code ,1980,
 Section of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005,
 Section 41A of CrPc.

Cases Referred- 
 Sushil Kumar Sharma vs Union of India AIR, 2005 SC 3100,
 Preeti Gupta vs State of Jharkhand 13 August, 2010,
 Ramgopal vs State of Madhya Pradesh 16 August, 2019,
 Savitri Devi vs Ramesh Chand 19 July, 2005
INTRODUCTION

Even as the twenty-first century approaches its end, neither the sophisticated Western world
nor traditional Asian and African countries can claim to have a gender-just society. Women,
the most vulnerable members of the human species, are the architects of civilization, the
nucleus of the family, the protector of the home, a source of inspiration and power for men on
all fronts, and it is women who choose the fate of the human race as the creator of the
Universe. Marriage has deteriorated into a method of gaining wealth, taking on the deadliest
form of a societal evil. Dowry is a marriage-related ritual. Dowry has arisen as a social evil, a
serious plague that has vitiated and destroyed family unity, peace, and progress. It has had an
impact on people from all walks of life, including the wealthy and the impoverished. The
dowry scandal has ruined many families and resulted in a spate of unhappy households.

Section 498-A was created in 1983 to protect married women from abuse by their husbands
or relatives. A three-year prison sentence and a fine have been given. The term "cruelty" has
been generally defined to include inflicting physical or mental harm on a woman's body or
health, as well as harassing her or her family in order to compel them to comply with any
illegal demand for property or valuable security. The Supreme Court judgement in Rajesh
Sharma vs. State of Uttar Pradesh suggests different methods to prevent the abuse of Section
498A. After the ruling was issued, a number of feminist NGOs and female social activists
criticised it.
FACTS OF THE CASE

The procedures in this matter were started when respondent 2, Sneha Sharma, submitted a
complaint. She married her husband, Rajesh Sharma, here appellant 1, on November 28,
2012. Her father did his best to offer dowry, but her husband and his family were
disappointed with the amount they received. As a result, the complainant claims, they began
abusing and torturing her. They also expected a dowry of Rs.3,00,000/- and a car, both of
which were out of reach for her family. On November 10, 2013, appellant No. 1 dropped the
complainant off at her matrimonial house. She was pregnant at the time and was experiencing
discomfort as a result of the termination of her pregnancy. Furthermore, as she said, her
stridhan was intact. After retaining stridhan, he asked for 50,000 and a gold jewellery. He
tortured his wife as a result of his dissatisfaction with not receiving the indicated demand.
Based on this document, the court summoned him under Sections 498A and 323 of the IPC.

According to the session court, he was deemed liable and found guilty under section 498A.
The court granted Sneha's request to summon the remaining suspects, Vijay Sharma, Jaywati
Sharma, Praveen Sharma, and Priyanka Sharma, her in-laws and the husband's brother and
sister. The summons order was subsequently appealed to the High Court under Section 482
CrPC. Despite the fact that it was sent to mediation, no conclusions were reached. The high
court found no reason to intervene in his family's summons, and the appellants' request was
dismissed, leaving the case to the Supreme Court.

ISSUE RAISED

In this situation, the key concern was:

 Should Rajesh Sharma's family be held responsible alongside him under Section
498A?
 Is it customary to involve all family members in resolving a marriage dispute?
 How were Section 498a provisions neglected and misrepresented in order to convict
innocent people?
 Finally, what are some possible answers to the section's risk for misunderstanding?
CONTENTIONS OF PARTIES

According to the counsel, there is a growing pattern of using the clause to trap all family
members, including elderly parents, tiny children, siblings, grandparents, and uncles, based
on imprecise and inflated claims with no verifiable proof of bodily or mental harm or
impairment. The following information was obtained from the Crime Records Bureau (CRB):
This is the case, according to National Crime Reports. The Record Bureau handled 58,319
cases in 2005. Section 498A of the IPC was used to report a total of 1,27,560 people. There
were 6,141 arrests and charges brought against people. It has been declared false due to a
factual or legal error. It was suggested that the clause was being exploited by citing numerous
case laws. It has been legally recognized, and efforts must be taken to address it. Abuse of
this nature should be avoided. A knowledgeable ASG proposed doing a preliminary
investigation along the lines of the conclusions in Lalita Kumari vs. Government of Uttar
Pradesh. A relative other than the husband may be arrested only with the permission of the
competent Magistrate. Relatives over the age of 70 should not be held. The ability of the
police to make quick arrests must be restrained. Before issuing authorization, the court must
examine whether there is prima facie evidence that the accused engaged in overt and covert
action. The respected senior lawyer, Shri V. Giri, maintained that an arrest for a Section
498A offence should be made only when the Superintendent of Police has given his
categorical consent. In the case of relatives living outside India, the matter should be pursued
only if the IO is sure that arrest is necessary for a fair investigation. In such cases, passport
impoundment or the issuance of a red corner notice should be avoided. Before filing a case
under Section 498A, counselling should be made a necessary step under Section 14 of the
Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005.
JUDGEMENT

After reviewing the problem's history and taking into account the Law Commission's 243rd
Report as well as prior decisions of this Court The court stated that abuses of the human
rights of innocent persons cannot be overlooked. Several safeguards against unlawful arrests
or insensitive investigations have been addressed by this Court. Nonetheless, the problem
persists to a great extent. Apart from sensitizing investigative authorities and trial courts, they
believed that integrating civil society in the administration of justice could be one of the
approaches. It is also critical to make it easier to end proceedings where a genuine settlement
has been reached, rather than requiring parties to resort to the High Court solely for that
purpose.

The court formed a family welfare committee in each district to handle all dowry cases,
giving this organization unfettered jurisdiction and the potential to serve as a justice
dispensation system. This committee must refer and investigate any complaint received by
the police or the Magistrate under Section 498A. No arrests will be made unless the
committee provides to the magistrate a report suggesting that the victim's justice would be
delayed. The accused can buy and sway members of a committee that operates as a judicial
body.

The court also noted that only an authorized Investigating Officer of the region may
investigate Section 498A complaints and any connected offences. Bail will be granted if a
bail application is made with at least one specific reason. The Public Prosecutor/complainant
is given a day's notice, and the case can be decided on the same day if possible. They went on
to say that it might not be necessary for all family members, particularly those who live far
away, to present in court. After six months of observing the aforementioned arrangement, but
no later than March 31, 2018, the National Legal Services Authority may offer a report on the
need for any revisions or additional directives.
Flaws in the reasoning of Supreme Court Judgment:

Patriarchy and male ideals are reflected.

 The extremely unfortunate feature in this case, which everyone is talking about, is that
the judge, rather than looking at the ground truth of the law, relied on data to reach his
determination.
 The judges did not admit even once that the law had significantly decreased physical
violence and dowry-related offences.
 The court never considered the implications of a watered-down dowry legislation.
This belief stems from a patriarchal society that proudly defends men's authority and
power.

Feminist perspective: How women's reasoning is treated as inferior to men.

 Feminists will criticise this judgement because it demonstrates how deeply established
masculine values are in our culture, which can be seen in every facet of it.
 The verdict also discusses how women make the complaint on a trifling problem and
lack the ability to foresee the implications of that act, demonstrating that women's
reasoning, reasonableness, and other abilities are regarded as inferior to those of
males.
 Any woman who tries to safeguard her rights and fight for her rights is labelled as
'disgruntled' by the court, demonstrating that anything that differs from 'malestream'
thinking is labelled as aberrant behaviour.
 The court further argues that family in Indian society is significantly more vital for
peace and harmony in society and that means that a wife and her tasks are mentioned
as per male understanding of the word 'wife'.
 Women are expected to work for family harmony and to obey whatever their husband
says. That is, the word "wife" deprives women of their pre-existing natural rights,
which every human being is entitled to.
  The fact that 30 percent of the accused in the instances are the husband's mother or
sister demonstrates how women's rationality and thinking have been profoundly
influenced by the male perspective, and they have absorbed the dominant male
beliefs.

The viewpoint of realists

 Though it appears that the courts have explained how a law in practise differs from its
precepts, and with society always evolving, there is a need to revaluate the law and
take the real circumstances into account. However, the judges' reasoning is entirely
incorrect since, without first eliminating the appropriate spectacle, they began
criticising the statute and how it has created a floodgate for a large number of cases.
 The fact that judges only looked at data from the National Crime Records Bureau and
ignored polls and analyses from numerous NGOs and other sources demonstrates the
judges' bias toward male dominance.
 The fact that NCRB data only shows how many cases are filed and only 14 percent of
them are convicted demonstrates the complexities involved in Indian judicial
processing as well as the patriarchal nature of society, as most women give up out of
fear, and those who continue to fight are labelled false due to inappropriate police
investigation.
 For many women, the regular incidence of abuse and stigmatisation has become so
commonplace that they have absorbed it and only seek justice when there is extreme
violence.
ANALYSIS

Our legal system is deeply concerned about the deteriorating recognition and judicial
recognition of women's rights. The case of Rajesh Sharma vs. State of Uttar Pradesh shows
how far women's rights in Indian society have to go. The verdict epitomizes the male-
dominated Indian legal system that requires women to fight for their rights. The Indian
judiciary must be feminised, and men and women's rights must be equally protected. Rather
than resolving the dowry menace, the court has aggravated it. Women who speak out against
such violence and protest will be scared to do so for fear of being evicted from their houses or
labelled by the courts as a "disgruntled" wife. As a result, the courts should reconsider the
impact and intent of legislation and take appropriate action. Instead of looking at the law as it
is, the judge relied on data to make his decision, which is a pretty sad truth in this case that
everyone is talking about. The judges refused to accept even once that the law had
significantly reduced physical violence and dowry-related offences. The court did not
consider the consequences of a reduced dowry system.

RECOMMENDATIONS

In this case, judges were compelled to look at more than one source for their reasoning, and
the verdict required a positivistic approach. Because the form of the legislation has been
diluted, it no longer fulfils its purpose. The sacrifice and fight of many women activists
behind this bill is being overlooked in favour of patriarchal values. The court required to
reconsider the effect and intent of the statute before judging the case in light of both and in
connection to each other.
CONCLUSION

This was a landmark decision because it not only acknowledged, but also attempted to build a
system of checks and balances regarding criminal statutes that were being misused by
women. However, a recent case of social action forum for Manav Adhikar v. Union of India
reversed the Family Welfare Committee rules. Even if the judgement in Rajesh Sharma's case
had no effect, it was a paradigm shift in the courts' approach and discussion. The judgement
has sparked the development of a framework for preventative measures that parliament can
debate and explore in order to reduce dowry law misuse.