LI Network
Published on: October 29, 2023 at 16:15 IST
The Supreme Court has acquitted a woman accused of killing her own child and sentenced to life imprisonment. The Court’s ruling underscores the fundamental right to privacy, emphasizing that the duty to disclose in a criminal trial should not unreasonably infringe upon an individual’s right to privacy.
The case revolved around Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and whether an accused woman is obligated to reveal personal details related to her private life during a criminal trial.
A bench consisting of Justices Abhay S Oka and Sanjay Karol addressed two pivotal questions in this appeal:
- To what extent does the right to privacy protect a woman accused of a crime, especially when the prosecution fails to meet its burden?
- What are the accused’s rights and duties in explaining incriminating circumstances in a statement under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure?
In this case, the prosecution argued that the accused had a relationship with a co-villager, became pregnant, and allegedly killed her child, disposing of the body in a water body (dabri). The accused admitted her pregnancy in her Section 313 statement, and the trial court inferred her guilt from this admission.
The Supreme Court strongly criticized the trial court’s approach, noting that it connected unrelated aspects and placed the guilt on the accused without substantial evidence. The Court questioned whether the accused had a right to privacy regarding her pregnancy and the fate of her child, especially when the prosecution had not established any connection between her and the deceased child found in the dabri.
The Court emphasized that a woman has a right to confidentiality and privacy in matters concerning her personal life and the law should not compel her to disclose such information. The Court also underlined the significance of privacy in a woman’s fundamental right to equality and her ability to make autonomous decisions about her own body and reproductive choices.
The Court further clarified that negative inferences cannot be drawn for questions or incriminating circumstances not presented to the accused during their statement under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C. In this case, the accused’s statement did not address questions about the child’s particulars.
The judgment highlighted that awarding life imprisonment demands a thorough evaluation of the evidence and cannot be done mechanically. The High Court should reevaluate the evidence, and given the appeal’s age, the Supreme Court proceeded to examine the evidence on record.
After scrutinizing the prosecution’s witnesses’ testimonies, the Court found that none could prove the prosecution’s case beyond a reasonable doubt. Moreover, the appellant vehemently denied the allegations of killing a child and provided an alternative version of events, stating that the child’s father tried to have her take medicine, leading to a miscarriage.
In conclusion, the Court acquitted the accused, emphasizing the importance of protecting an individual’s right to privacy and the need for substantial evidence before imposing life imprisonment.
