LI Network
Published on: October 21, 2023 at 15:54 IST
The Supreme Court stressed the importance of maintaining a delicate balance between the legal mandate to disclose information necessary for the adjudication of criminal matters and the fundamental right to privacy.
The Court made these observations while allowing an appeal against a conviction by the High Court, which had upheld the Trial Court’s decision.
The case involved an appeal against a life sentence awarded to the appellant. The Supreme Court expressed disappointment over the High Court’s general and cursory approach to re-evaluating the evidence and emphasized that awarding a life sentence requires a thorough examination of the evidence, not a mechanical or perfunctory decision.
The Bench, comprising Justice Abhay S. Oka and Justice Sanjay Karol, underlined that while there is a legal requirement to disclose information necessary for the adjudication of a criminal matter, this duty should not unreasonably infringe on the fundamental right to privacy.
The case revolved around a woman who was in a relationship and became pregnant. After giving birth, the appellant was accused of killing the child and disposing of the body. An FIR was filed, and the appellant was charged under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). The appellant appealed against the High Court’s judgment affirming the Trial Court’s conviction.
The Supreme Court considered two critical questions in this case:
- To what extent does the right to privacy protect a woman accused of a crime, especially when the prosecution has failed to discharge its duty?
- What are the rights and duties of the accused in explaining incriminating circumstances during a statement under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC)?
The Court noted that the High Court can affirm or overturn the Trial Court’s decision only after a re-evaluation of the evidence. It expressed dismay over the High Court’s approach to re-evaluating evidence in a serious case under Section 302 of the IPC. The Supreme Court held that none of the witnesses had proven beyond a reasonable doubt that the appellant had disposed of the body.
The Court emphasized that the right to privacy plays a crucial role in human dignity and the realization of human rights. It held that the appellant was not obligated to explain the circumstances surrounding her pregnancy or her miscarriage. The Court’s judgment reinforced the principles established in cases such as Joseph Shine v. Union of India (2019 3 SCC 39) and emphasized the right to reproductive choices without undue interference from the state.
In conclusion, the Supreme Court found that the prosecution’s case was based on presumption rather than concrete evidence to prove the appellant’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. The Court allowed the appeal and set aside the conviction and sentencing order.
Case title: “Indrakunwar v. The State of Chhattisgarh
