Held: The essence of a woman’s fundamental right to equality and privacy, regarding private matters of bodily and psychological integrity is the ability to make autonomous decisions about her own body and reproductive choices – It is entirely within the realm of privacy of a woman to decide whether or not to bear a child or abort her pregnancy (within the framework of law) – In the instant case, the guilt has been placed on appellant-convict 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 u/s. 313 CrPC) – This, in the Court’s view, was in itself suspect since she had been ‘deserted’ by her husband – 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. [Paras 27, 36]
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – s. 313 – Principles as evolved over period of time for statements u/s. 313 Cr.PC.:
Held: 1. The object, evident from the Section 313 Cr.PC. itself, is to enable the accused to themselves explain any circumstances appearing in the evidence against them; 2. The intent is to establish a dialogue between the Court and the accused – This process benefits the accused and aids the Court in arriving at the final verdict; 3. The process enshrined is not a matter of procedural formality but is based on the cardinal principle of natural justice, i.e., audi alteram partem; 4. The ultimate test when concerned with the compliance of the Section is to enquire and ensure whether the accused got the opportunity to say his piece; 5. In such a statement, the accused may or may not admit involvement or any incriminating circumstance or may even offer an alternative version of events or interpretation – The accused may not be put to prejudice by any omission or inadequate questioning; 6. The right to remain silent or any answer to a question which may be false shall not be used to his detriment, being the sole reason; 7. This 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; 8. This statement is to be read as a whole – One part cannot be read in isolation; 9. Such a statement, as not on oath, does not qualify as a piece of evidence u/s. 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; 10. The circumstances not put to the accused while rendering his statement under the Section are to be excluded from consideration as no opportunity has been afforded to him to explain them; 11. The Court is obligated to put, in the form of questions, all incriminating circumstances to the accused so as to give him an opportunity to articulate his defence – The defence so articulated must be carefully scrutinized and considered; 12. Non-compliance with the Section may cause prejudice to the accused and may impede the process of arriving at a fair decision. [Para 34] Penal Code, 1860 – s. 302 – Prosecution case that the convictappellant had relations with a co-villager 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 High Court upheld the conviction u/s. 302 IPC and the order of sentence passed by the trial Court – Propriety:
Held: It is established that negative inferences cannot be drawn for a question or incriminating circumstance not put to an accused while making a statement u/s. 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 – It is a matter of record that none of the witnesses has seen the convictappellant throwing the deceased child into the dabri; as hitherto observed, no conclusive proof, of any nature, of relationship had been put forth by the prosecution; no evidence has been led to cast doubt upon the version of the convict – The statement of the doctor is silent on the death of the deceased having occurred prior to or after birth, although in examination in chief, the doctor has deposed that the death of the deceased child was homicidal in nature; however, in the cross-examination, it is admitted that such fact does not form part of the record, thereby calling into question the conclusion itself as it is a vital piece of information that has been omitted – Therefore, the conviction recorded against the convict-appellant to be entirely based on mere presumption, with the actual evidence on record failing to establish the prosecution case much less beyond reasonable doubt. [Paras 36, 41, 43] LIST OF CITATIONS AND OTHER REFERENCES
Shafin Jahan v. Asokan K.M. (2018) 16 SCC 368 : [2018] 4 SCR 955; S. Khushboo v. Kanniammal (2010) 5 SCC 600 : [2010] 5 SCR 322; K.S. Puttaswamy (Privacy-9J.) v. Union of India (2017) 10 SCC 1: [2017] 10 SCR 569 – relied on.
Geeta Devi v. State of U.P 2022 SCC OnLine 57; Shakti Vahini v. Union of India (2018) 7 SCC 192 : [2018] 3 SCR 770; Suchita Srivastava v. Chandigarh Admn. (2009) 9 SCC 1 : [2009] 13 SCR 989; X v. The Principal Secretary, Health and Family Welfare Department, Government of NCT of Delhi and Ors 2022 SCC OnLine SC 905; XYZ v. The State of Gujarat & Ors. Criminal Appeal No. /2023 (@ Slp (Crl.) Dy. No. 33790/2023) – referred to.
OTHER CASE DETAILS INCLUDING IMPUGNED
ORDER AND APPEARANCES
As published in the Supreme Court Reports, Supreme Court of India. Text from the Indian Supreme Court Judgments open data set (Dattam Labs), CC BY 4.0.
This page is for informational and research purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Consult a qualified advocate for advice specific to your situation.