Supreme Court Orders Speedy Trial in Witchcraft Case Involving Disrobing of Women: Rajeev Kumar Upadhyay vs. Srikanth Upadhyay (2024) INSC 1008 (19 December 2024)

Date of the Judgment: 19 December 2024
Citation: 2024 INSC 1008
Judges: C.T. Ravikumar, J. and Sanjay Karol, J.
Can accusations of witchcraft justify the public humiliation and disrobing of women? The Supreme Court of India recently addressed this disturbing question in a case involving the brutal assault of two women. The court, deeply concerned by the inhumanity of the acts, has ordered a speedy trial, emphasizing the fundamental right to dignity and the State’s duty to protect vulnerable populations. This judgment underscores the urgent need to eradicate such barbaric practices and uphold the constitutional values of equality and justice. The judgment was authored by Justice Sanjay Karol.

Case Background

The case stems from an incident on 4th March 2020, where a woman and her relative were brutally attacked in a village. The grandmother of the complainant was accused of witchcraft by the accused, who then proceeded to assault her. The accused forcibly put stool in her mouth, causing her to vomit and fall to the ground. When the complainant and other witnesses intervened, they were also attacked. The accused disrobed the complainant’s grandmother and another woman, and snatched the jewellery of the complainant. The complainant was injured and had to seek treatment at a local hospital. The local police station did not register the FIR, and the complainant had to approach the court under Section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC) to get the FIR registered.

Timeline:

Course of Proceedings

Initially, the police filed a chargesheet against only one person, Lakhpati Devi, despite the FIR naming 13 individuals. The Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate (ACJM) took cognizance against all 13 accused persons, which was challenged before the Sessions Judge, who declined to interfere. The accused then approached the High Court of Judicature at Patna, which granted a stay on the cognizance order. The complainant, aggrieved by the stay, appealed to the Supreme Court. During the Supreme Court hearing, it was revealed that the petition seeking quashing of the cognizance order had been withdrawn.

Legal Framework

The case involves several key legal provisions, including:

• Sections 341, 323, 354, 354B, 379, 504, 506, 149 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC): These sections relate to offenses such as wrongful restraint, voluntarily causing hurt, assault or criminal force to woman with intent to outrage her modesty, assault or use of criminal force to woman with intent to disrobe, theft, intentional insult, criminal intimidation, and unlawful assembly.
• Section 3 & 4 of the Witch (Daain) Act: These sections deal with offences related to witch-hunting.
• Section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC): This section allows a magistrate to order the police to investigate a cognizable offense.
• Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC): This section deals with the inherent powers of the High Court.
• Article 14 of the Constitution of India: Guarantees equality before the law.
• Article 15 of the Constitution of India: Prohibits discrimination on the grounds of religion, race, caste, sex or place of birth.
• Article 21 of the Constitution of India: Protects the right to life and personal liberty.
• Article 51A(e) of the Constitution of India: Enjoins a fundamental duty to renounce practices derogatory to the dignity of women.
• Article 51 (c) of the Constitution of India: Enjoins upon the State the responsibility to foster respect for International Law and treaty obligations.

These provisions are part of the broader legal framework aimed at protecting the dignity and rights of individuals, particularly women, and ensuring justice and equality under the Constitution.

Arguments

The Supreme Court did not explicitly extract the arguments of the parties. However, the Court noted the following:

• The complainant was aggrieved by the High Court’s stay order, which halted the proceedings against the accused.
• The State did not challenge the High Court’s stay order, which the Supreme Court found surprising given the gravity of the offenses.
• The accused had filed a petition before the High Court seeking to quash the cognizance order, which was later withdrawn.

The Supreme Court emphasized that the High Court should not have granted a stay in a mechanical manner, without considering the gravity of the offenses and their impact on the victims.

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court did not explicitly frame any specific issues. However, the Court’s concerns and directions indicate that the following issues were implicitly considered:

1. Whether the High Court was justified in granting a stay on the cognizance order in a case involving such heinous offenses against women.
2. Whether the investigating authorities acted properly in filing a chargesheet against only one of the 13 accused.
3. Whether the State has fulfilled its duty to protect the dignity and rights of women, particularly in cases involving accusations of witchcraft and public humiliation.
4. Whether the trial court should proceed with the trial expeditiously.

Treatment of the Issue by the Court:

Authorities

The Supreme Court referred to several cases and international conventions to support its reasoning:

Judgment

The Supreme Court, while noting that the High Court’s order was rendered null by subsequent withdrawal of the petition, issued the following directions:

How each authority was viewed by the Court?

• The Court cited K.S. Puttaswamy (Privacy -9J.) v. Union of India [CITATION] to emphasize the constitutional value of dignity and its inseparable relationship with life and liberty.
• The Court referred to Vikram Deo Singh Tomar v. State of Bihar [CITATION] to highlight the State’s responsibility to protect vulnerable sections of society, particularly women and children.
• The Court cited Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala [CITATION] to underscore that the right to dignity is a part of the basic structure of the Constitution.
• The Court cited X2 v. State (NCT of Delhi) [CITATION] to reiterate that the concept of dignity forms the very foundation of the Constitution.
• The Court referred to Francis Coralie Mullin v. State (UT of Delhi) [CITATION] to emphasize that the right to life includes the right to live with human dignity.
• The Court cited Pawan Kumar v. State of H.P. [CITATION] to emphasize that a woman has her own space as a man has and that the right to live with dignity cannot be violated by indulging in obnoxious acts.
• The Court referred to Bodhisattwa Gautam v. Subhra Chakraborty [CITATION] to highlight the psychological impact of crimes like rape and disrobing on women.
• The Court cited the International Covenant on Civil and Protection Rights, Convention on Elimination of Discrimination Against Women (CEDAW), and Universal Declaration of Human Rights to reinforce India’s international obligations to protect the dignity and rights of women.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court was deeply concerned by the inhumane treatment of the two women, particularly the public humiliation and disrobing. The Court emphasized the importance of upholding the constitutional right to dignity and the State’s duty to protect vulnerable populations. The Court was also critical of the High Court’s mechanical grant of stay and the investigating authorities’ failure to properly charge all the accused. The Court noted that the incident was a blot on the constitutional spirit and that such acts should not be tolerated in a civilized society.

Logical Reasoning:

The Court’s reasoning was based on the following:

• The Court emphasized the fundamental right to dignity, as enshrined in Article 21 of the Constitution. “The right to live with human dignity is the fundamental right of every Indian citizen.”
• The Court highlighted the State’s responsibility to protect vulnerable sections of society, particularly women. “The overarching purpose of any action of the State should be the welfare of the people.”
• The Court condemned the practice of witch-hunting and the violence against women based on such accusations. “Witchcraft is deeply intertwined with superstition, patriarchy and social control.”
• The Court noted that the offence of disrobing would also qualify as having a similar effect on the psychology of the woman subjected to such deep humiliation.
• The Court referred to international conventions and resolutions to emphasize the global condemnation of such practices and the need for States to take action.

The Court, therefore, directed the District Court to proceed with the trial on a day-to-day basis, emphasizing that the comments made in the judgment should not influence the trial court’s decision.

Key Takeaways

• The Supreme Court has strongly condemned the inhumane treatment of women accused of witchcraft.
• The Court has emphasized the fundamental right to dignity and the State’s duty to protect vulnerable populations.
• The judgment highlights the need for sensitivity and awareness among investigating and adjudicatory authorities in cases involving violence against women.
• The Court has called for the eradication of practices such as witch-hunting and the public humiliation of women.
• The judgment underscores the importance of upholding constitutional values and ensuring justice for victims of such crimes.
• The trial court should proceed with the trial on a day-to-day basis.

Directions

The Supreme Court issued the following directions:

1. The matter is placed on the file of the concerned District Court to proceed in accordance with the law.
2. The trial against the accused persons shall proceed on a day-to-day basis.
3. The accused persons are directed to appear before the Trial Court on 15th January 2025.
4. The comments made in the judgment reflect only the heinousness of the crimes committed and do not cast a shadow of guilt over the accused persons.
5. The Trial shall proceed keeping in view the aforesaid principles but uninfluenced by any observations made in this judgment.

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of the case is that the State has a duty to protect the dignity of all persons, especially women, and that violence against women based on accusations of witchcraft is a serious violation of fundamental rights. This judgment reinforces the importance of upholding constitutional values and ensuring justice for victims of such crimes. There is no change in the previous position of law, but the judgment emphasizes the need for strict enforcement of existing laws and sensitivity towards victims of such crimes.

Conclusion

In Rajeev Kumar Upadhyay vs. Srikanth Upadhyay, the Supreme Court has taken a strong stance against the brutal assault and public humiliation of women, particularly in cases involving accusations of witchcraft. The Court’s directions for a speedy trial reflect its commitment to ensuring justice and upholding the constitutional values of equality and dignity. This judgment serves as a reminder of the urgent need to eradicate such barbaric practices and protect the rights of vulnerable populations.

Category:

• Criminal Law
  • Indian Penal Code, 1860
    • Section 341, Indian Penal Code, 1860
    • Section 323, Indian Penal Code, 1860
    • Section 354, Indian Penal Code, 1860
    • Section 354B, Indian Penal Code, 1860
    • Section 379, Indian Penal Code, 1860
    • Section 504, Indian Penal Code, 1860
    • Section 506, Indian Penal Code, 1860
    • Section 149, Indian Penal Code, 1860
  • Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973
    • Section 156(3), Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973
    • Section 482, Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973
  • Witch (Daain) Act
    • Section 3, Witch (Daain) Act
    • Section 4, Witch (Daain) Act
• Constitutional Law
  • Constitution of India
    • Article 14, Constitution of India
    • Article 15, Constitution of India
    • Article 21, Constitution of India
    • Article 51A(e), Constitution of India
    • Article 51 (c), Constitution of India
• Human Rights
  • Right to Dignity
  • Women’s Rights

FAQ

Q: What was the main issue in the Rajeev Kumar Upadhyay vs. Srikanth Upadhyay case?
A: The main issue was the brutal assault and public humiliation of two women accused of witchcraft, and whether the High Court was justified in granting a stay on the cognizance order.

Q: What did the Supreme Court say about the High Court’s stay order?
A: The Supreme Court strongly criticized the High Court for granting a stay in a “callous and unreasoned manner,” without considering the gravity of the offenses.

Q: What was the State’s role in this case?
A: The Supreme Court expressed surprise that the State did not challenge the High Court’s stay order, given the State’s duty to protect the dignity of its citizens.

Q: What is the significance of this judgment?
A: This judgment underscores the importance of upholding constitutional values, protecting the dignity of women, and ensuring justice for victims of violence. It also highlights the need to eradicate practices such as witch-hunting.

Q: What directions were given by the Supreme Court?
A: The Supreme Court directed the District Court to proceed with the trial on a day-to-day basis and ordered the accused to appear before the Trial Court on 15th January 2025.

Q: What is the fundamental duty under Article 51A(e) of the Constitution of India?
A: Article 51A(e) of the Constitution of India enjoins a fundamental duty to renounce practices derogatory to the dignity of women.

Q: What is the State’s responsibility under Article 51(c) of the Constitution of India?
A: Article 51(c) of the Constitution of India enjoins upon the State the responsibility to foster respect for International Law and treaty obligations.