Supreme Court: In a criminal appeal filed by the convict against the impugned judgment passed by the Chhattisgarh High Court, wherein the Court convicted the accused under Section 302 of Penal Code, 1860 (‘IPC’), the division bench of Abhay S. Oka and Sanjay Karol*, JJ. while setting aside the impugned judgment, has observed that the High Court has confirmed the view of the Trial Court awarding life imprisonment without supplying any cogent reasons. Further, acquitted the convict of all charges and set her at liberty. Further, it said that although there is a requirement by law to disclose the aspects required to adjudicate in a criminal matter, such duty cannot unreasonably and unwarrantedly step over the fundamental right of privacy.
Background:
The convict had relations with a co-villager, as a result of which she conceived a child. She, upon giving birth, allegedly killed this child and threw the corpse into a pond. After due investigation, the chargesheet was filed and eventually, the convict was charged with committing an offence punishable under Section 302 of the IPC.
Issues:
-
To what extent does the right to privacy, shield the matters concerning the personal life of a woman accused of committing a crime, particularly when the prosecution has failed to discharge its duty?
-
To what extent are the rights or duties of the accused to explain the incriminating circumstances appearing against them in a statement under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (‘CrPC’)?
Analysis:
The Court observed that the Courts below, in holding the convict guilty, primarily relied on the testimonies of eight independent witnesses, the testimony of the doctor, and the statement of the convict under Section 313 CrPC.
The Court said that awarding the punishment of life imprisonment requires due appreciation of evidence and cannot be awarded mechanically and in a perfunctory manner. The law requires that the High Court must, only after re-appreciation of evidence, confirm or overturn the findings of fact returned by the Trial Court.
Further, it said that the impugned judgment makes only general and sketchy observations, unlike the appreciation of evidence as is required by law, in respect of testimonies of the witnesses and other evidence. This approach cannot be appreciated, especially when the conviction rendered is for a serious offence, that is, Section 302 IPC.
After examining the witness testimonies, the Court said that none of these witnesses could prove, much less beyond a reasonable doubt, the prosecution case of the accused having thrown the child in the dabri after delivery or having caused the death.
The Court said that the convict in her defense, denied the accusation of having killed any child, much less the child in question. She states that the father of the child was in an endeavor to get rid of the child, forcibly tried to have her take some medicine. On her refusal, he pushed her into ‘Suraj ki dabri’ leading to her miscarriage. Thus, she had not killed the child and was being falsely implicated.
Concerning the question that whether the convict has no right of privacy of not disclosing the prosecution or the Court as to what happened to her child which she was carrying in her womb, particularly when the prosecution failed to discharge the initial burden and onus of establishing the deceased, in any manner to be related to the convict, the Court said that Right to Privacy is regarded as one of the most crucial human rights in the contemporary day. The essence of a woman’s fundamental right to equality and privacy, regarding private matters of bodily and psychological integrity is the ability to make autonomous decisions about her own body and reproductive choices. It is entirely within the realm of privacy of a woman to decide whether or not to bear a child or abort her pregnancy within the framework of law.
The Court said that it is apparent that the guilt has been placed on her without any solid foundation thereto, since no relationship of any nature whatsoever could be established between her, and the deceased child discovered in the dabri. The conclusion drawn is simply on the basis that the convict was a woman living alone and had been pregnant.
As per the Court, thrusting upon a woman the guilt of having killed a child without any proper evidence, simply because she was living alone in the village, thereby connecting with one another two unrelated aspects; reinforces the cultural stereotypes and gendered identities which the Court has explicitly warned against.
Concerning the second issue, the Court said that the object of the Section is to enable the convict to explain to themselves any circumstances appearing in the evidence against them. This process benefits the accused and aids the Court in arriving at the final verdict.
The Bench said that the process enshrined is not a matter of procedural formality but is based on the cardinal principle of natural justice, i.e., audi alteram partem. In such a statement, the accused may or may not admit involvement or any incriminating circumstance or may even offer an alternative version of events or interpretation. The accused may not be put to prejudice by any omission or inadequate questioning. The right to remain silent or any answer to a question which may be false shall not be used to his detriment, being the sole reason.
The Court said that this statement cannot form the sole basis of conviction and is neither a substantive nor a substitute piece of evidence. It does not discharge but reduces the prosecution’s burden of leading evidence to prove its case. They are to be used to examine the veracity of the prosecution’s case. This statement is to be read as a whole. One part cannot be read in isolation. Such a statement, as not on oath, does not qualify as a piece of evidence under Section 3 of the Evidence Act, 1872; however, the inculpatory aspect as may be borne from the statement may be used to lend credence to the case of the prosecution.
Further, the Court said that the circumstances not put to the accused while rendering his statement under the Section are to be excluded from consideration, as no opportunity has been afforded to him to explain them The Court is obligated to put, in the form of questions, all incriminating circumstances to the accused so as to give him an opportunity to articulate his defence. The defence so articulated must be scrutinized and considered. Non-compliance with the Section may cause prejudice to the accused and may impede the process of arriving at a fair decision.
The Bench said that is established that negative inferences cannot be drawn for a question or incriminating circumstance not put to an accused while making a statement under Section
The Court noted that none of the witnesses has seen the convict throwing the deceased child into the dabri; no conclusive proof, of any nature, of relationship had been put forth by the prosecution; no evidence has been led to cast doubt upon the version of the convict. The statement of the doctor is silent on the death of the deceased having occurred prior to or after birth, although in examination in chief, the doctor has deposed that the death of the deceased child was homicidal in nature; however, in the cross-examination, it is admitted that such fact does not form part of the record. Thus, it said there were gaps in the prosecution case.
Therefore, the Court disagreed with the Courts below, that the circumstances conclusively point to the guilt of the convict, and the conviction was entirely based on mere presumption, with the actual evidence on record failing to establish the prosecution case much less beyond reasonable doubt.
[Indrakunwar v. State of Chhattisgarh, 2023 SCC OnLine SC 1364, decided on 19-10-2023]
*Judgment Authored by: Justice Sanjay Karol
Know Thy Judge | Supreme Court of India: Justice Sanjay Karol
Buy Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 HERE
Buy Penal Code, 1860 HERE
