THE STATES

Focus on domestic violence

A Truth Commission debates the findings about the high incidence of unnatural deaths of women in dowry-related incidents in Bangalore, and in this context the broader issue of domestic violence, and makes recommendations for tightening investig ative and prosecution procedures.

PARVATHI MENON
in Bangalore

A THREE-DAY public hearing in Bangalore before a Truth Commission comprising a distinguished jury of political and social activists, lawyers and former judges revisited the issue of domestic violence against women, which was first raised by the women's m ovement in India 20 years ago. It was pressure from the women's movement in the early 1980s that resulted in the amendment of penal statutes to protect women against all forms of marital violence by broadening the definition of cruelty, providing for hea vier penalties, and relaxing evidentiary requirements. Twenty years on, the problem of domestic violence, particularly dowry-related domestic violence, has escalated and assumed shocking proportions, both in its incidence and social spread, as a limited but thorough study-cum-campaign in Bangalore by the women's group Vimochana has shown (Frontline, August 27).

Organised by Vimochana in collaboration with the National Law School University of India, the Truth Commission, which sat for three days from August 15, was confronted with the contemporary face of domestic violence, its patterns and causes, and the limi tations of investigative and justice-giving procedures that are in place to deal with it.

While it was the hope of speedy justice that brought the fifty-plus families before the Commission to depose, for Vimochana the hearings marked a new phase in its ongoing campaign against dowry-related domestic violence. "The Truth Commission provided us the opportunity to take the issue of domestic violence to a more public and political level," Donna Fernandes of Vimochana told Frontline. "It marks for us the beginning of a new stage. We intend to organise these commissions in the districts and also network with other organisations. The report has underscored the need for tighter monitoring of the investigative and prosecution processes. We have to push for acceptance of these findings at the political level."

The members of the commission sat in two juries and heard depositions. The terms of reference were: 1. to identify the shortcomings in police investigations, inquest, dying declarations, forensic science and prosecution; 2. to suggest improvements for be tter medical treatment for women who are victims of domestic violence; 3. to recommend measures and suggest appropriate institutional arrangements to provide adequate protection to women victims of violence; and 4. to help put in place a system that is a ccessible, transparent and accountable. One of the jury panels was headed by Justice H. Suresh, former Judge of the Bombay High Court, and included Justice Leila Seth, former Judge of the Delhi High Court and of the Himachal Pradesh High Court and now a member of the Law Commission of India; Brinda Karat, general secretary of the All India Democratic Women's Association; Padma Seth, former member of the National Commission for Women; and Flavia Agnes, lawyer and women's rights activist in Mumbai. The ot her jury was headed by N. Madhava Menon, former Director of the National Law School of India University and Law Commission member, and included Justice Sadashivaiah, former Judge of the Karnataka High Court; R. Venkatramani, senior advocate of the Supre me Court; Madhu Kishwar, editor of the women's journal Manushi; and Corinne Kumar, founder-member of Vimochana.

The jury panel led by Justice Suresh gave a set of specific suggestions on how each of the cases that came up before them at the public hearing could be followed up. It also gave a set of broader recommendations on how the investigative and prosecution p rocedures could be tightened. Of the 24 cases it heard, it found that in 12 cases reinvestigation and reframing of charges was called for owing to the failure of the police to assess the nature of the case. In addition, there were at least five more case s of police negligence. Thus, in 17 of the 24 cases, according to this jury, there was clear evidence of police culpability. In five of the cases, the post-mortem did not give the relevant details, and of these in three there were charges of corruption a gainst the doctors concerned. The inquest proceedings in at least one-third of the cases were faulty. Of the 24 cases, the jury panel found that in eight cases there was evidence of lapses and bias in judicial procedure. Of these, three cases concerned the question of bail for the accused, two concerned irrational adjournment and delay of hearings, and three reflected judicial bias in the judgment, in the jury's opinion. It noted that families of victims did not in some cases have information on the st atus of the case. In 12 cases, the complainants had not been given copies of the First Information Report (FIR) and/or the post-mortem report and had no information on the progress of their cases. The jury also recommended, in four cases, the filing of a ppeals for child custody/maintenance/visiting rights. In all the cases, the natal families of the victims knew of the harassment of the woman prior to her death, and in many cases had sent the woman back to her husband's family with the advice that she s hould "adjust".

In this summation of cases lies a picture of shoddy investigation, lack of transparency and information, the utter lack of accountability of the various arms of the investigative machinery, and the ignorance of the complainant who is sent from pillar to post with little or no idea of the law or where the case stands. The large number of acquittals in such cases is not surprising given the flaws in the initial investigation process.

K. BHAGYA PRAKASH
Outside the venue of the Truth Commission's public hearing in Bangalore, Vimochana activists draw attention to a serious social issue.

All the members of the Truth Commission made special mention of the lack of support that harassed, and often battered, daughters received from their natal families. "By asking her to return to her husband's family, parents have unwittingly signed their d aughter's death warrant," noted Brinda Karat.

This jury also gave specific recommendations with respect to some of the crucial elements of the investigative process. It stressed the importance of the correct filing of the FIR, upon which is based all subsequent investigation. It noted that many poli ce doctors and Special Executive Magistrates do not follow the basic rules in the recording of the dying declaration and the inquest proceedings. The jury also recommended that as far as possible the inquest should be conducted in the presence of the vic tim's family.

Vimochana's study shows that 70 per cent of cases of suspicious deaths of women were closed and the deaths recorded in the Unnatural Death Register (UDR). On this important issue, the jury said that all cases of deaths of married women within seven years of marriage should, as the law provides, be actively investigated. "The police practice of adding a dowry section to every death seems to have boomeranged and has resulted in many acquittals," the jury noted. "Violence against women should be viewed wit hin a wider perspective rather than the narrow scope of 'dowry death'. We need changes in sections which deal with violence against women so that their scope is not narrowed down merely to violence due to dowry. Another automatic presumption of the polic e in cases of hanging, in particular, or of cases of death due to poison is that of suicide. All investigations are conducted within this framework. This often converts what in reality is a murder case under Section 302 to suicide and abetment to suicide . In our findings in 24 cases, there are as many as 11 cases where the wrong sections have been applied by the police due to these false premises."

The jury made some important recommendations on the role of the Public Prosecutor, a crucial agency responsible in bringing about convictions. It noted that most cases failed because of the "corruption, apathy and indifference of this agency". Although t he panel did not have the opportunity to examine many judgments in dowry cases, the few it did contained judicial biases, according to the panel.

T.L. PRABHAKAR
Relatives of a woman who died following dowry-related domestic violence depose before the Truth Commission.

On the last day of the public hearing, each member of the jury offered his/her general comments and personal recommendations on the issue of marital violence and unnatural deaths of women. Madhava Menon was of the opinion that a jury of 12 citizens, of w hich half are women, should try such cases (as is the model in many countries of the West). This idea was opposed by Justice Suresh. Indeed, it is a viewpoint that women's groups and others disagree with. Juries can be influenced by social and ideologica l pressures that would prevent the unbiased application of law.

Brinda Karat noted several points of concern. The first was that one should not look at these cases as individual aberrations or in the framework of a man-woman relationship, but as reflecting a social trend that has enveloped all sections and communitie s. The social context of violence is closely related to the social processes spawned by the culture of economic liberalisation, she said. "The violation of the Line of Control and our territorial integrity brought forth national outrage, as it should hav e. But every day the LoC that preserves basic humanitarian concerns in interaction between human beings is violated, and we are silent." Her point that a society that perceives marriage as central to a woman's role and identity thereby circumscribes her choices was shared by other jury members, including Flavia Agnes and Padma Seth. Madhu Kishwar said that the lives of many women could have been saved if the natal families had extended them the support that they needed.