Innocent until proven Guilty
Everyone charged with a penal offence has the right to be presumed innocent until proved guilty according to law in a public trial at which he has had all the guarantees necessary for his defence. No one shall be held guilty of any penal offense on account of any act or omission which did not constitute a penal offense, under national or international law, at the time it was committed. Nor shall a heavier penalty be imposed than the one that was applicable at the time the penal offense was committed. You should be considered innocent until it can be proved that you are guilty. If you are accused of a crime, you should always have the right to defend yourself. Nobody has the right to condemn you and punish you for something you have not done. - United Nations
A lot many women's organisation and National social institutions are preparing reports on crime against women. Statistics are showing that only 2% of the accused are actually convicted in such cases of crime against women. Let me write here a quote of Aaron Levenstein on statistics.
"Statistics are like a bikini. What they reveal is suggestive, but what they conceal is vital."
People have unexpectedly begun to draw baseless conclusions that when only 2% of the accused are convicted, then the rest should also be convicted by way of strengthening the laws. Does this sound justifiable ? How could we rule out the possibility that the accusation was false ? Why is it not possible that the accused was not convicted because he was innocent ? This implies that people who are accused for whatever crime, have surely committed the crime whether they are convicted or acquitted. That means if you accuse somebody falsely, still he/she should be convicted by strengthening the law so that the accused doesn't get acquitted. This malpractice violates the basic tenet of the law, "Innocent until proven Guilty" ?
There are several laws that are defined in such a manner that the responsibility of proving oneself innocent is placed on the accused. The accuser doesn't have to prove that the accused has committed the crime. How does one ensure that the accused is innocent when the accuser has been given undue 'rights' of accusing somebody neglecting the law that the accused should be presumed innocent until proven guilty ? Should a person be given such 'rights' to accuse somebody and demand unconditional conviction from the law ? Why the accused be deprived of his 'rights' of being called innocent until proven guilty ? Why is it not possible that the accuser has falsely accused somebody ?
There are countless such arguments that needs to be raised to amend the laws because of the widespread misuse sensing its susceptibility. With such laws been susceptible to misuse, a lot many people must have been accused and convicted only because they weren't able to prove themselves innocent and would be carrying out his imprisonment term. This doesn't mean that they had committed the crime. Just one false complain could lead a man to pay a price of his life only because he was unable to prove himself innocent. Is this true justice ? Why these women's organisation deliberately ignoring the principles of law and turning a blind eye on the facts that could prove the accused innocent ? It becomes transparent from such half-baked reports and their irrational deductions that they do not care about the genuineness of the complain, they only want the accused to be unconditionally convicted. Is this what they call women's "rights" ?
Would it be reasonable to give somebody 'rights' up to such an extent that when she accuses somebody, then he has to be convicted irrespective of he being innocent ? This is exactly how the IPC 498A has been defined now and it only needs somebody's guess on how many people are in jail only because they weren't able to prove their innocence on the face of a false accusation.
The truth has finally come out that these women's organisation aren't truely working on attaining gender equality. By demanding such biased laws and misusing it only shows their ulterior motives to harass men in the society. Gender Equality is about providing equal social, economic and legal setup and environment for both the genders. But such laws directly violates the very intent of gender equality and we have the 'right' to blame it on women's organisation.
"How would you feel when somebody accuses you for the crime you have never committed and the law asks you to prove your innocence, and still convicts you and punishes you ?" Thousands of people are victims of this malpractice. You decide who is responsible for such injustice.