Back
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
ABHAY S. OKA, SANJAY KAROL, JJ.
Indrakunwar – Appellant
Versus
The State Of Chhattisgarh - Respondent
Criminal Appeal No.1730 of 2012
Decided on : 19-10-2023
(A) Constitution of India – Article 21 – Right to privacy – Right to Privacy is regarded as one of the most crucial human rights in contemporary day – In many different countries and civilizations, privacy is cherished – It is also protected by numerous international and regional human rights treaties, including Universal Declaration of Human Rights, International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, and many more – Essence of a woman's fundamental right to equality and privacy, regarding private matters of bodily and psychological integrity is ability to make autonomous decisions about her own body and reproductive choices – It is entirely within realm of privacy of a woman to decide whether or not to bear a child or abort her pregnancy within framework of law – Right to privacy is inviolable. (Paras 22, 27 and 31)
(B) Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 – Section 313 – Examination of accused – Parameters – Intent is to establish dialogue between Court and accused – This process benefits accused and aids Court in arriving at final verdict – Process enshrined is not a matter of procedural formality but is based on cardinal principle of natural justice, i.e., audi alteram partem – In such a statement, accused may or may not admit involvement or any incriminating circumstance or may even offer an alternative version of events or interpretation – Accused may not be put to prejudice by any omission or inadequate questioning – Right to remain silent or any answer to a question which may be false shall not be used to his detriment, being sole reason – This statement cannot form sole basis of conviction and is neither a substantive nor a substitute piece of evidence – It does not discharge but reduces prosecution's burden of leading evidence to prove its case – They are to be used to examine veracity of 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 Evidence Act, 1872 – However, inculpatory aspect as may be borne from statement may be used to lend credence to case of prosecution – Circumstances not put to accused while rendering his statement under the Section are to be excluded from consideration. (Paras 34.2 to 34.10)
(C) Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Section 302 – Murder of child – Conviction and sentence – Circumstantial evidence – None of witnesses has seen convict-appellant throwing deceased child into pond – Statement of doctor is silent on death of deceased having occurred prior to or after birth, although in examination in chief, doctor has deposed that death of deceased child was homicidal in nature – Conviction recorded against convict-appellant is entirely based on mere presumption, with actual evidence on record failing to establish prosecution case much less beyond reasonable doubt – Conviction returned by Trial Court and affirmed by High Court, quashed and set aside – Convict-appellant acquitted of all charges. (Paras 41, 43 and 44)
Facts of the case:
Questions arising for consideration in the present appeal are:
1) To what extent does right to privacy shield matters concerning personal life of a woman accused of committing a crime, particularly when the prosecution has failed to discharge its duty?
2) To what extent are rights or duties of accused to explain incriminating circumstances appearing against them in a statement under Section 313 of Code of Criminal Procedure?
Findings of Court:
Conviction returned by Trial Court in Session Trial No.52 of 2004 and affirmed by High Court in Criminal Appeal No.605 of 2005 is quashed and set aside. Convict-appellant is acquitted of all charges and, if in jail in connection with instant lis, is set at liberty forthwith. Her bail bonds stand discharged.
Result : Appeal allowed.
Key Points: - The right to privacy is inviolable and must be considered when assessing accusations against a woman, including matters related to pregnancy and childbirth. (!) (!) (!) - The statement under Section 313 CrPC is intended to facilitate dialogue, must be read as a whole, and cannot by itself form the basis of conviction; failure to disclose certain private aspects cannot infringe unjustly on privacy. (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) - Non-disclosure or absence of explanation in 313 CrPC does not automatically establish guilt; circumstantial evidence requires complete linkage and must satisfy the chain of reasoning beyond reasonable doubt. (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) - Conviction in a circumstantial-evidence case requires that all links form a complete chain pointing to guilt, otherwise acquittal or remand is warranted. (!) (!) (!) - The court emphasized that evaluating the evidence must be thorough and not rely on general or sketchy observations, especially in serious offences like murder. (!) (!) (!)
JUDGMENT :
SANJAY KAROL J.,
1. The questions arising for consideration in the present appeal are:
1) 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?
2) 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 Procedure1[Hereinafter referred to as ‘CrPC’]?
2. This appeal at the instance of the convict-appellant impugned a judgment of the High Court of Chhattisgarh passed in Criminal Appeal No.605 of 2005 dated 20th April 2010, whereby the judgment of conviction under Section 302 of Indian Penal Code, 18602[Hereinafter referred to as ‘IPC’] and order of sentence dated 4th July 2005 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Baikunthpur, District Koriya (Chhattisgarh) in Sessions Trial No. 525 of 2004 was upheld.
BACKGROUND OF THE CASE
3. Eschewing unnecessary details, the facts of the case put forward by the prosecution are:
3.1 The convict-appellant had relations with a co-villager, namely, Baiga Gond, as a result of which she conceived a child. She, upon giving birth, allegedly killed this child and threw the corpse into a dabri (small water body- pond).
3.2 An FIR (First Information Report) dated 14th September 2004, the very day on which the alleged corpse of the newborn child of the convict-appellant was found, stood registered. After due investigation, the chargesheet was filed on 13th October 2004, and eventually, the accused was charged with committing an offence punishable under Section 302 of the IPC.
4. The Trial Court, having recorded the statements of various witnesses, observed that the case is the one resting upon circumstantial evidence.
4.1 The prosecution declared five of the eight witnesses examined hostile, including Jai Mangal Singh - PW1, at whose instance the FIR was registered.
4.2 The other witnesses, for instance, Sumitra – PW4, is recorded to be “guessing” about the convict-appellant being pregnant; Kuwarobai – PW8 refused that she ever saw the convict-appellant pregnant as also that she would use a ‘chadar’ to hide her pregnancy.
4.3 Yet, referring to the statements of PW1, Suraj Kumar Singh – PW2, Rambaran Singh – PW3, PW4, Ram Jhalako – PW5, Birhulia – PW6, Rambai – PW7, A.R. Manikpuri (Head Constable) – PW9 to establish the presence of the body of the deceased child in ‘Suraj ki dabri’ the statement under Section 313 CrPC of the convict-appellant along with the statement of Dr. Divya Rani Tigga – PW11 regarding the signs of recent delivery on the person of the convict-appellant found the following circumstances to have been proved: -
a) The accused was living in the village alone as her husband deserted her. Also that, she was pregnant.
b) In the dabri (small pond), the body of a newborn baby was found on 14th September 2004, and a few days before that, i.e., 2-3 days, the accused had delivered a child.
c) The accused did not state anything nor tell anyone about the delivery.
4.4 Given the above, the Trial Court found the offence punishable under Section 302 IPC to have been proved beyond reasonable doubt.
5. The High Court, in the judgment impugned before us, taking note of the testimony of PW11, who deposed that she had, upon examination, found the convict-appellant to have delivered a child and that the deceased had suffered injuries, convicted the accused. However, the doctor admits that the death of the child being prior to or after the birth remains unmentioned. The same was noted to be of no consequence as the injuries recorded on the body of the deceased child established the death to be homicidal in nature. In conclusion, the High Court held that the conviction under Section 302 IPC was warranted.
6. It is observed that the Courts below, in holding the accused guilty, primarily relied on the testimonies of eight independent witnesses, the t
(1) Right to privacy is inviolable.Circumstances not put to accused are to be excluded from consideration.
The court established that specific evidence of continuous cruelty or harassment is essential to substantiate charges of dowry death and cruelty under IPC Sections 498A and 304B.
Compliance with Section 313 of Cr.P.C. is crucial to afford the accused an opportunity to explain incriminating evidence and non-compliance leading to prejudice warrants setting aside the conviction.
The conviction of the appellant for sexual offences under IPC and the Goa Children's Act was upheld based on consistent testimony of the victim, emphasizing the necessity of protecting child victims ....
The failure to put the contents of the dying declarations to the accused under Section 313 CrPC resulted in prejudice to the accused, and the dying declarations could not be used against him in the a....
A conviction cannot solely rely on a dying declaration unless it is proven to be voluntary and reliable, with the accused given a chance to explain incriminating evidence.
No DNA analysis of any person can be conducted by State without obtaining consent of party concerned.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
