Read Time: 11 minutes

Synopsis

The Supreme Court has acquitted a woman in a case of killing her newborn child, saying that thrusting upon her guilt without any proper evidence, simply because she was living alone, deserted by her husband, reinforced cultural stereotypes and gender identities.

A bench of Justices Abhay S Oka and Sanjay Karol set aside the Chhattisgarh High Court's 2005 and the trial court's 2004 judgments saying that the conviction of accused Indrakunwar with life term sentence was "entirely based on mere presumption".

"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," the court said.

The bench said that the judgment under challenge, made 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," the bench said. 

According to the prosecution, the woman, allegedly deserted by her husband, had relations with a co-villager as a result of which she conceived a child. Upon giving birth, she allegedly killed this child and threw the corpse into a dabri (small water body- pond). 

After going through the details of the case, the bench said 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.

In her defense, the convict-appellant categorically denied the accusation of having killed any child, much less the child in question. She stated that one Baiga Gond, who had fathered the child she was carrying, in an endeavor to get rid of the child, forcibly tried to have her take some medicine. He pushed her into 'Suraj ki dabri' on her refusal, leading to her miscarriage. The further defence set up by her was that she had not killed the child and was being falsely implicated. 

In deciding the appeal, the bench framed two questions as to what extent the right to privacy shields the matters concerning the personal life of a woman accused of committing a crime, particularly when the prosecution has failed to discharge its duty and to what extent the rights or duties of the accused are to explain the incriminating circumstances appearing against them in a statement under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

What must be considered is whether the convict-appellant has no right of privacy of not disclosing to 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 accused, the bench asked.

The court further asked if it isn't inherent in a lady the right of confidentiality and privacy in matters concerning her personal life, of not disclosing any circumstances, as may be required by law.

After citing various Supreme Court judgments including the K S Puttaswamy (right to privacy) case and those related to the right of every woman to make reproductive decisions, including the decision to terminate the pregnancy, the bench said 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 bench said.

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 bench said.

"The conclusion drawn is simply on the basis that the convict-appellant was a woman living alone and had been pregnant (as admitted in the statement under 313 CrPC). This, in the court's view, was in itself suspect since she had been ‘deserted’ by her husband," the bench said.

"Such a view being taken, i.e., 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 this Court has explicitly warned against," the bench added.

The court pointed out that negative inferences cannot be drawn for a question or incriminating circumstance not put to an accused while making a statement under Section 313 CrPC. 

"Her statement nowhere reflects an answer to a question concerning the particulars of the child that she was admittedly carrying but denied that the deceased was not the one recovered from the dabri. 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," the bench said.

The bench also pointed out that the statement of the doctor, who conducted a mortem on the corpse, was silent on the death of the deceased having occurred prior to or after birth, although in examination in chief, the doctor had deposed that the death of the deceased child was homicidal in nature; however, in the cross-examination, it was admitted that such fact did not form part of the record.

Case Title: Indrakunwar Vs The State of Chhattisgarh