False cases against a husband and his family are very much a reality and also increasing by the day in numbers. Its just when cases like these get reported, we realise, how a big legal extortion system exists in India where women-centric laws are being misused, by not just the wife, but often by government officials too, who are duty bound to maintain law and order in society.
- The present case was a dispute between husband and wife, where the police was called in and how the latter misused his position to frame the husband and his family
- According to the complaint father, on May 30, 2013, his son Vishal and daughter-in-law wife had some altercation and thereafter, the woman threatened to commit suicide
- Vishal had informed this fact to the police and after that Assistant Sub Inspector Sube Singh, came to the spot and took the entire family to the police station
- The matter between the family was settled, however, ASI Singh demanded Rs 50,000 from Vishal and his father, threatening to implicate them in a case of ‘abetment to commit suicide’ and also threatened to send them to jail
- While Singh was paid Rs 20,000 on May 31, 2013, Vishal’s friend recorded the entire incident of taking bribe by Singh
- This was the only saving grace for Vishal and his family
- Thereafter, an FIR was lodged in this regard
- The prosecution urged the court not to show any leniency to the accused, saying he was a member of police service and was responsible to implement the law since the police is considered to be protector of law
- Now, after six-years of the case in court, Singh has been awarded 3-year jail term for taking bribe from the family and threatening to implicate them in a false case
Special Judge Kiran Bansal imposed a fine of Rs 1.20 lakh on Sube Singh, 59, saying that suitable punishment was required to create some deterrent effect. Bansal also said “corruption” and “misuse of power” are among the reasons for people avoiding the police.
The court refused to grant any leniency to the convict, saying the offence had wide ramification which caused victimisation of public at large and had an impact on the society. Adding further the court also cited,
There is a general perception that the police do not behave properly towards complainants, witnesses and victims of crime.
Police’s response to most people approaching for service is perceived to be inadequate, insensitive, biased and delayed. Ordinary citizens often find it difficult to get cases registered without either bribing the police personnel or bringing some influence on them. Police is also perceived to be corrupt and partial.
Such is the legacy and image of the police that a common man avoids approaching police station or seeking police help unless the circumstances are compelling.
The court even questioned how comfortable people felt dialling 100 number today, since cases like these would make a family think if they were inviting more trouble. Judge Bansal emphasised,
Corruption is an enemy of nation and tracking down corrupt public servant, howsoever high he may be, and punishing such person is a necessary mandate under the Prevention of Corruption Act. Every country feels a constant longing for good governance, righteous use of power and transparency in administration.
The accused being a police official was duty bound to assist in the protection of society and not to commit an offence against society of the kind which has been proved in this case.
The order also read,
It said that the affairs of the State are conducted through its official and they are thus, trustee of powers on behalf of public at large. They are required to use these powers with utmost care and responsibility and when the powers are used against the public interest, the faith of the public gets reduced in the system of the government which is not a positive sign in democracy.
As a member of Delhi Police, accused was expected to develop a strong ethical compass and not to let the temptations of power take him off course. The position of convict as ASI should have made him more responsible towards the society but he rather breached the trust.
The accused on the other hand, sought leniency on the ground that he was the sole bread earner of the family and there was no one to look after his old ailing father, wife and youngest son.
All policemen are not corrupt. There are many other cases where the police have gone beyond the call of duty to help and aide people. But such reports make us realise how a man and his family can be so vulnerable at the mercy of police and then the law, if they have no means or recorded evidence to prove their innocence.