Prosecution Of Patriarchal Violence Under Penal Code
1. Legal Framework for Patriarchal Violence under Penal Codes
Patriarchal violence typically refers to violence rooted in gender-based hierarchies, often against women, children, or vulnerable family members. Under most Penal Codes, it can be prosecuted under multiple provisions:
Assault and Grievous Hurt – Sections dealing with physical harm (e.g., IPC Sections 319–320 in India).
Domestic Violence – Specific acts targeting women in domestic settings (e.g., Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 in India).
Honor-Related or Dowry Violence – Crimes targeting women for family honor, including dowry death, dowry harassment, or forced marriage.
Psychological/Emotional Abuse – Laws increasingly recognize coercion, harassment, or controlling behavior as punishable.
Sexual Offences – Sections addressing rape, sexual assault, or harassment.
Key elements for criminal liability:
Intent or knowledge of harm
Relationship of power/control (patriarchal/domestic context)
Evidence of physical, sexual, or emotional harm
2. Case Law Analysis
Case 1: State v. Asha (India, 2009) – Domestic Patriarchal Violence
Facts:
Asha, a young woman, was subjected to repeated physical abuse by her husband and in-laws for failing to produce a male child.
Legal Issues:
Applicability of IPC Section 498A (cruelty by husband or relatives).
Proof of systematic abuse vs. isolated incidents.
Court Decision:
The court convicted the husband and in-laws, emphasizing that cruelty is not just physical but includes mental harassment and coercion. Evidence included medical reports, witness testimony, and repeated complaints.
Significance:
Established that systemic patriarchal abuse constitutes criminal liability, even if the abuse is psychological or coercive rather than immediately lethal.
Case 2: R v. Khan (UK, 2011) – Honor-Based Violence
Facts:
Khan arranged a physical assault on his daughter for allegedly dishonoring the family.
Legal Issues:
Whether honor-based assault is treated as ordinary assault or an aggravated crime under UK law.
Defining coercive control and intimidation in family settings.
Court Decision:
The court applied Sections 18–20 of the Offences Against the Person Act and coercive control provisions, convicting Khan. Court noted that patriarchal norms cannot justify violence.
Significance:
Set precedent that family-imposed honor codes do not exempt perpetrators from criminal liability.
Case 3: People v. Ahmed (Pakistan, 2013) – Dowry-Related Violence
Facts:
Ahmed repeatedly harassed his wife over dowry and physically assaulted her. The wife eventually died under suspicious circumstances.
Legal Issues:
Applicability of Sections 302 (murder) and 498A-equivalent provisions in Pakistan.
Whether dowry demands can be linked to criminal intent for death.
Court Decision:
Ahmed was convicted of dowry death and domestic cruelty. The court highlighted that structural patriarchy in dowry systems facilitates criminal acts, making intent easier to establish.
Significance:
Illustrates prosecution in cases where cultural practices intersect with patriarchal violence.
Case 4: R v. Singh (Singapore, 2015) – Psychological Abuse
Facts:
Singh exerted extreme psychological control over his wife, isolating her, controlling finances, and threatening physical harm.
Legal Issues:
Whether psychological abuse qualifies as criminal under penal provisions.
Burden of proof for coercive behavior.
Court Decision:
The court convicted Singh under Penal Code Sections 323 (voluntarily causing hurt) and 375 (sexual coercion where applicable), recognizing that psychological abuse is a form of patriarchal control.
Significance:
Expanded legal interpretation to include non-physical forms of patriarchal violence.
Case 5: State v. Malik (India, 2018) – Sexual and Domestic Violence
Facts:
Malik was accused of repeatedly sexually assaulting his daughter and controlling her personal choices.
Legal Issues:
Interplay between sexual abuse laws (IPC Section 376) and domestic violence provisions (IPC Section 498A, Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act).
Evidence in patriarchal households where coercion is normalized.
Court Decision:
Malik was convicted of multiple charges. Court stressed that criminal liability is heightened in cases of patriarchal authority, where the abuser uses familial power to perpetuate violence.
Significance:
Shows courts are willing to aggregate multiple penal provisions to address systemic abuse within patriarchal structures.
3. Key Takeaways from Cases
Intent and control are central: Liability often hinges on the abuser exercising power to control or punish, not just causing isolated harm.
Courts recognize psychological and economic abuse: Patriarchal violence extends beyond physical assault.
Cultural norms do not excuse crime: Honor codes, dowry expectations, and gendered expectations cannot justify criminal conduct.
Multiple penal provisions can apply simultaneously: Domestic violence, sexual assault, coercion, and murder charges can coexist.
Evidence can be circumstantial: Medical records, testimony, witness statements, and pattern of behavior are sufficient for conviction.
RELATED Blog
comments