Supreme Court acquits woman accused of killing her newborn; says High Court, trial court disregarded her privacy

The Supreme Court recently acquitted a woman accused of killing her own new born baby whom she had allegedly conceived after she had physical relations with a co-villager [Indrakunwar vs State of Chhattisgarh]..A bench of Justices Abhay S Oka and Sanjay Karol said that there was no evidence to prove that the deceased child belonged to the woman or that she had killed the child. The apex court, therefore, criticised the courts below including the Chhattisgarh High Court for finding the woman guilty without any solid evidence and for overlooking her right to privacy."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. 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 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)," the Court stated..The bench was hearing an appeal filed by the woman against a 2010 Chhattisgarh High Court judgment that had upheld her conviction and life sentence.The appellant was living alone in the village after her husband deserted her. According to the prosecution case, she had relations with a co-villager 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). The accused was charged with committing murder punishable under Section 302 of Indian Penal Code. The trial court after recording the statements of various witnesses, observed that the case was one resting upon circumstantial evidence.The prosecution declared five of the eight witnesses examined hostile, including Jai Mangal Singh (prosecution witness 1) at whose instance the FIR was registered.Despite the same, it relied upon the statements of the witnesses as well as the statement given by the accused under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) to conclude that the accused was living in the village alone as her husband deserted her and she had become pregnant though she did not state anything nor tell anyone about the delivery.The trial court also concluded that the body of a newborn baby was found on September 14, 2004, and a few days before that, i.e., 2-3 days, the accused had delivered a child.Based on the above conclusions, the trial court found her guilty and sentenced her to imprisonment for life. The same was confirmed by the High Court.This led to the appeal before the Supreme Court.In her defense, the convict-appellant categorically denied the accusation of having killed any child, much less the child in question. She stated that 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.The top court at the outset noted that the judgment under challenge made only general and sketchy observations specially with regard to evidence and witnesses."This approach cannot be appreciated, especially when the conviction rendered is for a serious offence, that is, Section 302 IPC," the judgment said.Further, the Court proceeded to examine the statements given by all the witnesses.From the statements, it noted that none of the witnesses testified to the presence of the accused near the pond and some of them pointed to the accused only because she was the sole woman in the area without a husband.Even the medical officer's testimony only said that the deceased baby had been delivered prematurely and its death was homicidal in nature.The medical officer admitted not to have mentioned as to whether the child had died before or after birth and she did not even mention whether the child belonged to the accused person.The Court, therefore, noted that none of the witnesses could prove the prosecution case of the accused having thrown the child in the pond after delivery and having caused the child's death.As regards the Section 313 statement of the accused, the Court said that such a statement cannot form the sole basis of conviction and is neither a substantive nor a substitute piece of evidence. "It does not discharge but reduces the prosecution's burden of leading evidence to prove its case. They are to be used to examine the veracity of the prosecution's case...Such a statement, as not on oath, does not qualify as a piece of evidence under Section 3 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872; however, the inculpatory aspect as may be borne from the statement may be used to lend credence to the case of the prosecution," the Court said.The Court said that her Section 313 statement raised several questions on the right to privacy of a woman's pregnancy status."It is pertinent for us to intervene when structures of injustice and persecution deeply entrenched in patriarchy are destructive of constitutional freedom. The right to privacy is the underpinning of human dignity and is fundamental to the realization of human rights," the Court said.In the present case, the Court noted that the issue before it was whether it could be said that the convict-appellant was obliged to disclose her pregnancy, if so, and what became of such child that she was allegedly carrying?The Court said that 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."It is established that negative inferences cannot be drawn for a question or incriminating circumstance not put to an accused while making a statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. 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," the Court held..The bench in conclusion observed that the gaps in the prosecution's case meant that the woman's guilt was not established beyond reasonable doubt.The appeal was, thus, allowed and the High Court judgment was set aside..Senior Advocate Suryanarayana Singh with advocates Naresh Kumar, and Shantanu Sharma represented the woman, one Indrakunwar. Advocates Gautam Narayan, Asmita Singh, Harshit Goel, and Siddhant Singh appeared for the Chhattisgarh government..[Read Judgment]