The Supreme Court acquitted an appellant who had been convicted of killing her newborn child based on circumstantial evidence. The Court emphasized the inviolable right to privacy and the need for a rigorous burden of proof in such cases. It noted that the conviction was based on mere presumption and found that the circumstances did not conclusively point to the appellant's guilt, ultimately setting her free and highlighting the fundamental importance of the right to privacy in criminal cases.
Facts of the Case:
The appellant in this case sought to file an appeal against a judgment by the Chhattisgarh High Court that upheld her conviction under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). The appellant was accused of killing her newborn child and disposing of the corpse. The prosecution's case relied on circumstantial evidence, witness statements, and the appellant's statement under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C.). The testimony provided by the doctor suggested that the appellant had given birth to a child and that the child had suffered injuries, but the fact that the death of the child occurred before or after the birth remained unmentioned. The appeal questioned the extent to which her right to privacy protected details of her personal life in the context of her criminal case and the rights and duties of the accused in explaining incriminating circumstances during their statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C.
The Trial Court found that the offence had been proved beyond reasonable doubt and the Chhattisgarh High Court upheld their decision.
Contentions of the Appellant:
The appellant denied the accusations levelled against her and asserted that she did not kill the child in question. Instead, she claimed that the father of the child she was carrying, Baiga Gond, had attempted to force her to take medication to induce a miscarriage. When she refused, he allegedly pushed her into 'Suraj ki dabri,' leading to a miscarriage. The appellant maintained that she was falsely accused of the child's murder.
Observations of the Court:
The Supreme Court focused on the principles of privacy and the requirements of a statement as prescribed under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C. The Court stated that negative inferences cannot be drawn for a question or incriminating circumstance not put to an accused while making a statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. The Court noted that the "right to privacy is inviolable. Unfortunately, the view taken and the language adopted by both the Courts below lays to waste such a right inherent in the convict-appellant."
The Supreme Court relied on its judgment in the case of K.S. Puttaswamy (Privacy-9J.) v. Union of India[1] to emphasize the importance of privacy as a right founded on individual autonomy and human dignity. The judgment explained the intersection of privacy with other fundamental rights, including those related to gender and freedom of thought, creates a private space crucial for human dignity and self-determination, making it an inalienable constitutional value.
The Court relied on its judgment in the case of Shailendra Rajdev Pasvan v. State of Gujarat[2], which stressed the importance of a conscientious approach when dealing with circumstantial evidence. It emphasized that a conviction should only occur when all links in the chain of evidence are complete, unequivocally pointing to the accused's guilt while eliminating any element of innocence. Mere suspicion arising from individual links is insufficient to warrant a conviction.
The Court also discussed the burden of proof in cases based on circumstantial evidence, highlighting the heavy onus on the prosecution to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. The court noted that the evidence in this case failed to establish the prosecution's case beyond reasonable doubt and held that, “we cannot agree with the learned Courts below that the circumstances conclusively point to the guilt of the convict-appellant.” The Court found that the circumstances did not conclusively point to the guilt of the appellant and that the conviction of both Courts was based on mere presumption.
The Decision of the Court:
The Supreme Court quashed and set aside the conviction of the appellant, acquitting her of all charges. The Court ordered her immediate release from custody and discharged her bail bonds. The Court answered the questions raised in the case by affirming the importance of the right to privacy and the need for a rigorous burden of proof in criminal cases based on circumstantial evidence.
Case Title: Indrakunwar vs. State of Chhattisgarh
Coram: Hon’ble Justices Abhay S. Oka and Sanjay Karol
Case no.: Criminal Appeal No. 1730 of 2012
Citation: 2023 Latest Caselaw 813 SC
Advocates for Appellant: Suryanarayana Singh, Naresh Kumar, and Shantanu Sharma
Advocates for the Respondent: Gautam Narayan, Asmita Singh, Harshit Goel, and Siddhant Singh
Read Judgment @LatestLaws.com
Picture Source :
