In the case of indrakunwar vs state of chhattisgarh, the Indian Supreme Court (“Court”) held that the right of an accused individual to remain silent during a criminal prosecution is an integral aspect of their right to privacy. Consequently, it is not possible to utilize an accused person’s silence about a personal matter as evidence to convict them of homicide.
The appellant in this case was accused of killing her newborn, who was purportedly born outside of marriage. She was found guilty of murder by the trial court and given a sentence based on section 302 of the indian penal code (the “IPC”). The only evidence used to support the conviction was circumstantial, such as witness accounts of her living alone and becoming pregnant when she was living apart from her spouse. This included a statement she made in accordance with section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (“CrPC”), which stated that she quietly confessed to being pregnant but kept the details of the baby’s birth a secret. This was interpreted by the court as an implicit admission of guilt for the offense. Following the High Court’s confirmation of her life sentence, the current appeal was submitted to the Supreme Court.
On appeal, the Court reversed the conviction, ruling that the Appellant could not be held accountable for her silence over the outcome of the pregnancy. The Court further emphasized that the right to privacy included the right to silence.
indrakunwar vs state of chhattisgarh Case Facts
- The appellant in this instance was charged with the murder of her unwed infant child. The prosecution claimed that the appellant was living alone in the village after being divorced from her husband.
- She became pregnant during this period and had relationships with Baiga Gond, another villager. Later on, the modest water feature in the village had the corpse of a newborn baby.
- Five of the eight witnesses the prosecution called throughout the trial, including the case’s complainant, did not corroborate the accusations. The details of the appellant’s pregnancy could not be independently confirmed by any of the witnesses. Their accounts served as proof that the dead body of a newborn kid had been found in the water pond.
- None of them, nevertheless, was able to claim to have known the newborn belonged to the appellant. Additionally, it was proven that the appellant lived alone in the community after being divorced from her spouse.
- The testimony of a medical professional was used to prove that the child was born before its due date and that it had injuries from traumas sustained after birth.
- The physician further stated in her deposition that she had examined the appellant and discovered that she had recently given birth, but that the identity of the deceased child had not been confirmed.
- The appellant herself had made the decision to keep quiet about the events leading up to and following her purported pregnancy. In her declaration presented in front of the court pursuant to section 313 of the code of criminal procedure, she refuted every accusation levelled against her.
- She added, though, that Baiga Gond had actually fathered the kid she was expecting and had then attempted to coerce her into taking medication to end the pregnancy.
- She had miscarried as a result of being forced into the pond during the ensuing struggle. This was interpreted by the trial court as an admission that the appellant was unwed pregnant and that the child had passed away.
- In light of this and other circumstantial evidence in the case, the trial court convicted her guilty of murder and imposed a Section 302 IPC punishment on her. The High Court upheld this conviction and the life sentence. Later, the Appellant approached the Supreme Court.
indrakunwar vs state of chhattisgarh Issues
- To what extent does a woman facing criminal charges have the right to privacy in relation to her personal concerns, particularly if the prosecution has not done its job?
- Under section 313 of the code of criminal procedure, what are the accused’s rights or obligations with regard to the incriminating circumstances stated in their statement?
Contentions by the Parties
Appellant:
- The appellant never hurt a child, much less the one in question.
- When the convict-appellant refused to take the medications, he tried to forcefully induce a miscarriage, he shoved her into the pond, causing the miscarriage.
Respondent:
- Numerous witness statements are available.
- The medical examination findings indicated that the convict-appellant showed evidence of recent delivery.
- The child who passed away had murderous wounds.
indrakunwar vs state of chhattisgarh Judgment
- A thorough assessment of the facts is required since the imposition of a life sentence is a grave matter.
- Before determining whether to sustain the trial court’s decision, the High Court should reconsider the evidence, as it did in the recent Geeta Devi v. State of U.P. case.
- Given the gravity of section 302 of the IPC, it is troubling that the impugned judgment merely offers broad and cursory views about the witness testimonies and other material, falling short of the legal standards for a comprehensive review.
- After the Court re-examined the witnesses, it was determined that none of their testimony was strong enough to implicate the convict-appellant and appeared to be biased against him.
- The convict-appellant was found guilty mainly because she was a pregnant independent lady living on her own.
- Because her husband “deserted” her, the lower courts viewed this suspiciously, perpetuating cultural prejudices that the Supreme Court has sternly cautioned against.
- The Court must step in when deeply ingrained patriarchal and unfair regimes jeopardize constitutional liberties.
- In the Shakti Vahini v. Union of India case, the Supreme Court previously acknowledged that the freedom to select a spouse is a Fundamental Right protected by Articles 19 as well as 21 of the Indian Constitution.
- As long as it complies with the law, a woman’s right to privacy is unaffected by her decision to seek an abortion or to carry on with her pregnancy.
- Under section 313 of the Criminal Procedure Code, the case examines the legal standards and tenets related to the convict-appellant’s statement.
- The main goals of this section are to provide a line of communication between the accused and the court and give the accused a chance to defend themselves.
- When an accused person makes a statement under this provision, no negative inference can be made about any question or damning circumstance that was not presented to them.
Fair Trial
- With a focus on natural justice principles, the ruling carefully reviews the appellant’s comments given in accordance with Section 313 of the Criminal Procedure Code. It emphasizes that the statement should not serve as the only foundation for conviction and that the accused’s right to silence should not be exploited against them. The court emphasizes the value of a fair trial and the requirement that the accused be given the chance to mount a defense.
Legal Practice and Its Impact
- Privacy as a Defense: The ruling upholds the use of the right to privacy as a defense, especially when it comes to matters of a personal nature like reproductive choices. Attorneys may utilize this ruling to support their clients’ privacy rights in comparable situations.
- Examining Circumstantial Evidence: When handling situations involving circumstantial evidence, attorneys may consult this ruling. In these kinds of instances, the court’s emphasis on creating a comprehensive chain of evidence acts as a standard for assessing whether the evidence is sufficient.
- Gender Sensitivity in Legal Proceedings: The ruling emphasizes how crucial it is to keep gender prejudice and stereotypes out of the legal system. Legal experts might be more aware of the need to ensure equitable treatment, particularly for women, as well as they might question presumptions that support discrimination based on gender.
The Supreme Court ruled that the convict-appellant’s conviction was solely predicated on assumption. Convict-appellant was pressured into disclosing personal information by the prosecution’s negligence in carrying out its obligations. The fulfilment of human rights and the preservation of human dignity depend on the right to privacy. The freedom to make decisions about one’s own body and reproductive options is fundamental to a woman’s rights to equality and privacy.
The court quashed thereby setting aside the orders of both courts, holding that the High Court had upheld the Trial Court’s order without offering convincing justification for the decision. The convict-appellant was found not guilty of any crimes and, if detained, was ordered to be released from jail right away. Her bail bonds are also no longer in force, and any outstanding interlocutory applications are resolved.
For any latest news, legal topics, judiciary exams notifications, patterns, etc watch Jyoti Judiciary’s YouTube channel for legal videos for any updates at https://youtube.com/@jyotijudiciarycoaching4852?si=2cwubh9d2A9urwJf
