Supreme Court Protects Privacy of Women Accused: Indrakunwar vs. State of Chhattisgarh (2023)

Date of the Judgment: 19 October 2023

Citation: 2023 INSC 934

Judges: Abhay S. Oka J., Sanjay Karol J.

Can a woman’s silence about her personal life be used against her in a criminal trial? The Supreme Court of India recently addressed this crucial question, emphasizing the importance of privacy for women, especially when the prosecution’s case is weak. The Court examined the extent to which a woman accused of a crime must disclose personal details, particularly regarding pregnancy and childbirth, and the implications of such disclosures in criminal proceedings. This judgment underscores the significance of the right to privacy and its intersection with criminal law. The bench comprised Justices Abhay S. Oka and Sanjay Karol, with the judgment authored by Justice Sanjay Karol.

Case Background

The prosecution alleged that Indrakunwar, the appellant, had a relationship with Baiga Gond, which resulted in a pregnancy. After giving birth, she allegedly killed the child and disposed of the body in a small pond (dabri). The First Information Report (FIR) was registered on September 14, 2004, the same day the child’s body was found. Following an investigation, a chargesheet was filed on October 13, 2004, charging Indrakunwar with murder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).

The Trial Court noted that the case relied on circumstantial evidence. Five of the eight prosecution witnesses were declared hostile. Witnesses gave conflicting statements about whether they had seen the appellant pregnant. Despite this, the Trial Court, relying on the witnesses’ statements, the discovery of the body, and a medical examination confirming recent childbirth, convicted Indrakunwar under Section 302 of the IPC.

The High Court upheld the conviction, emphasizing the medical evidence of delivery and injuries on the child’s body, concluding that the death was homicidal. The High Court did not find it necessary to determine whether the child was born alive or dead before the injuries were inflicted.

Timeline

Legal Framework

The case primarily revolves around Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC), which deals with the punishment for murder. It also involves Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC), which allows the court to question the accused to explain any circumstances appearing in evidence against them.

Section 302 of the IPC states:

“Whoever commits murder shall be punished with death, or imprisonment for life, and shall also be liable to fine.”

Section 313 of the CrPC states:

“(1) In every inquiry or trial, for the purpose of enabling the accused personally to explain any circumstances appearing in the evidence against him, the Court—
(a) may, at any stage, without previously warning the accused, put such questions to him as the Court considers necessary;
(b) shall, after the witnesses for the prosecution have been examined and before the accused is called on for his defence, question him generally on the case:
Provided that in a summons-case, where the Court has dispensed with the personal attendance of the accused, it may also dispense with his examination under clause (b).
(2) No oath shall be administered to the accused when he is examined under sub-section (1).
(3) The accused shall not render himself liable to punishment by refusing to answer such questions, or by giving false answers to them.
(4) The answers given by the accused may be taken into consideration in such inquiry or trial, and put in evidence for or against him in any other inquiry into, or trial for, any other offence which such answers may tend to show he has committed.”

Arguments

Prosecution’s Arguments:

• The prosecution argued that the appellant was pregnant and living alone after being deserted by her husband.
• They presented evidence that a newborn’s body was found in a pond (dabri) a few days after the appellant had delivered a child.
• The prosecution highlighted that the appellant did not inform anyone about the delivery.
• The prosecution emphasized the medical evidence that the child was delivered prematurely and died a homicidal death.
• The prosecution argued that the circumstances, when viewed together, pointed towards the guilt of the appellant.

Defense’s Arguments:

• The appellant denied killing any child and stated that Baiga Gond, the father of her child, tried to force her to take medicine to get rid of the child.
• She claimed that she was pushed into the pond by Baiga Gond, which led to a miscarriage.
• The defense argued that the prosecution failed to establish any direct link between the appellant and the deceased child.
• The defense emphasized that the prosecution’s case was based on weak circumstantial evidence and suspicion.
• The defense argued that the appellant had a right to privacy and was not obligated to disclose personal details about her pregnancy and miscarriage, especially when the prosecution failed to prove her guilt.

Analysis of Arguments:

The prosecution relied heavily on circumstantial evidence, attempting to create a chain of events that would lead to the conclusion of the appellant’s guilt. However, the defense effectively pointed out the gaps in this chain, highlighting the lack of direct evidence linking the appellant to the crime. The defense also raised a crucial point about the appellant’s right to privacy, arguing that she was not obligated to disclose personal details when the prosecution failed to establish a clear case against her.

Innovativeness of the argument: The defense innovatively argued that the appellant’s right to privacy shields her from having to explain the circumstances of her miscarriage, especially when the prosecution has not established a link between her and the dead child. This argument challenges the traditional view that an accused must explain all incriminating circumstances, even personal ones.

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court framed the following issues for consideration:

1. To what extent does the right to privacy shield the matters concerning the personal life of a woman accused of committing a crime, particularly when the prosecution has failed to discharge its duty?
2. To what extent are the rights or duties of the accused to explain the incriminating circumstances appearing against them in a statement under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure?

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

The following table demonstrates as to how the Court decided the issues:

Authorities

The Supreme Court considered various authorities to support its reasoning:

Cases:

• Geeta Devi v. State of U.P. [2022 SCC OnLine 57] – Discussed the need for the High Court to re-appreciate evidence before confirming a conviction.
• Joseph Shine v. Union of India [2019 3 SCC 39] – Highlighted the importance of privacy and the need to avoid cultural stereotypes.
• K.S. Puttaswamy (Privacy-9J.) v. Union of India [(2017) 10 SCC 1] – Established privacy as a fundamental right.
• Miller v. United States [357 U.S. 301(1958)] – Quoted the principle of the sanctity of one’s home and personal space.
• Shakti Vahini v. Union of India [(2018) 7 SCC 192] – Recognized the right to choose a partner as a fundamental right.
• Shafin Jahan v. Asokan K.M. [(2018) 16 SCC 368] – Affirmed that the choice of a partner lies within the exclusive domain of each individual.
• S. Khushboo v. Kanniammal [(2010) 5 SCC 600] – Stated that morality and criminality are not coextensive.
• Suchita Srivastava v. Chandigarh Admn. [(2009) 9 SCC 1] – Linked the right to consent to termination of pregnancy with a woman’s right to privacy.
• X v. The Principal Secretary, Health and Family Welfare Department, Government of NCT of Delhi and Ors. [2022 SCCOnLine SC 905] – Held that the right to become pregnant is not tied to marital status.
• XYZ v. The State of Gujarat & Ors. [Criminal Appeal No. /2023 (@ Slp (Crl.) Dy. No. 33790/2023)] – Reaffirmed that the right to make reproductive decisions is within a woman’s competence.
• Premchand v. State of Maharashtra [(2023) 5 SCC 522] – Discussed the principles for considering statements under Section 313 CrPC.
• Jai Dev v. State of Punjab [AIR 1963 SC 612] – Discussed the principles for considering statements under Section 313 CrPC.
• Asraf Ali v. State of Assam [(2008) 16 SCC 328] – Discussed the principles for considering statements under Section 313 CrPC.
• Inspector of Customs v. Yashpal [(2009) 4 SCC 769] – Discussed the principles for considering statements under Section 313 CrPC.
• Fainul Khan v. State of Jharkhand [(2019) 9 SCC 549] – Discussed the principles for considering statements under Section 313 CrPC.
• Mohd. Firoz v. State of M.P. [(2022) 7 SCC 443] – Discussed the principles for considering statements under Section 313 CrPC.
• Bishnu Prasad Sinha v. State of Assam [(2007) 11 SCC 467] – Discussed the principles for considering statements under Section 313 CrPC.
• Dehal Singh v. State of H.P. [(2010) 9 SCC 85] – Discussed the principles for considering statements under Section 313 CrPC.
• Brajendrasingh v. State of M.P. [(2012) 4 SCC 289] – Discussed the principles for considering statements under Section 313 CrPC.
• Sharad Birdhichand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra [(1984) 4 SCC 116] – Discussed the principles for considering statements under Section 313 CrPC and circumstantial evidence.
• Hate Singh Bhagat Singh v. State of Madhya Pradesh [1951 SCC 1060] – Discussed the principles for considering statements under Section 313 CrPC.
• Shamu Balu Chaugule v. State of Maharashtra [(1976) 1 SCC 438] – Discussed the principles for considering statements under Section 313 CrPC.
• Paul v. State of Kerala [(2020) 3 SCC 115] – Discussed the principles for considering statements under Section 313 CrPC.
• Kalicharan v. State of U.P. [(2023) 2 SCC 583] – Discussed the principles for considering statements under Section 313 CrPC.
• Nasib Singh v. State of Punjab [(2022) 2 SCC 89] – Discussed the principles for considering statements under Section 313 CrPC.
• Jai Prakash Tiwari v. State of Madhya Pradesh [2022 SCC OnLine SC 966] – Discussed the principles for considering statements under Section 313 CrPC.
• Satbir Singh v. State of Haryana [(2021) 6 SCC 1] – Discussed the principles for considering statements under Section 313 CrPC.
• Bable v. State of Chhattisgarh [(2012) 11 SCC 181] – Discussed the principles for considering statements under Section 313 CrPC.
• Selvi v. State of Karnataka [(2010) 7 SCC 263] – Discussed the principles for considering statements under Section 313 CrPC.
• Shailendra Rajdev Pasvan v. State of Gujarat [(2020) 14 SCC 750] – Discussed the approach for cases based on circumstantial evidence.
• Munikrishna v. State [2022 SCC OnLine SC 1449] – Discussed the burden of proof in cases based on circumstantial evidence.
• Hanumant Govind Nargundkar v. State of Madhya Pradesh [(1952) 2 SCC 71] – Discussed the burden of proof in cases based on circumstantial evidence.

Legal Provisions:

• Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) – Defines the punishment for murder.
• Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) – Allows the court to question the accused to explain incriminating circumstances.

Judgment

The Supreme Court overturned the conviction, emphasizing that the prosecution failed to establish a link between the appellant and the deceased child. The Court held that the appellant’s right to privacy was violated by the lower courts, which used her silence about personal matters against her. The Court also clarified the scope of Section 313 of the CrPC, stating that an accused is not obligated to disclose personal details when the prosecution has not proven its case.

How each authority was viewed by the Court:

• Geeta Devi v. State of U.P. [2022 SCC OnLine 57] – *The Court followed the principle that the High Court must re-appreciate evidence before confirming a conviction*.
• Joseph Shine v. Union of India [2019 3 SCC 39] – *The Court reiterated the importance of privacy and the need to avoid cultural stereotypes.*
• K.S. Puttaswamy (Privacy-9J.) v. Union of India [(2017) 10 SCC 1] – *The Court applied the principle that privacy is a fundamental right and is essential for personal autonomy.*
• Miller v. United States [357 U.S. 301(1958)] – *The Court used the quote to highlight the sanctity of personal space and privacy.*
• Shakti Vahini v. Union of India [(2018) 7 SCC 192] – *The Court reaffirmed that the right to choose a partner is a fundamental right.*
• Shafin Jahan v. Asokan K.M. [(2018) 16 SCC 368] – *The Court applied the principle that the choice of a partner is a personal matter and falls within the zone of privacy.*
• S. Khushboo v. Kanniammal [(2010) 5 SCC 600] – *The Court used the principle that morality and criminality are not coextensive to emphasize that personal choices should not be criminalized.*
• Suchita Srivastava v. Chandigarh Admn. [(2009) 9 SCC 1] – *The Court relied on this case to support the view that the right to consent to the termination of pregnancy is derived from the right to privacy.*
• X v. The Principal Secretary, Health and Family Welfare Department, Government of NCT of Delhi and Ors. [2022 SCCOnLine SC 905] – *The Court used this case to emphasize that the right to become pregnant is a personal choice, irrespective of marital status.*
• XYZ v. The State of Gujarat & Ors. [Criminal Appeal No. /2023 (@ Slp (Crl.) Dy. No. 33790/2023)] – *The Court reaffirmed the principle that the right to make reproductive decisions is within a woman’s competence.*
• Premchand v. State of Maharashtra [(2023) 5 SCC 522] – *The Court applied the principles for considering statements under Section 313 CrPC, emphasizing that they cannot be the sole basis of conviction.*
• Jai Dev v. State of Punjab [AIR 1963 SC 612] – *The Court used this case to support the principle that an accused’s statement under Section 313 CrPC cannot be used as a substitute for evidence.*
• Asraf Ali v. State of Assam [(2008) 16 SCC 328] – *The Court applied the principle that the statement under Section 313 CrPC is not a substitute for evidence.*
• Inspector of Customs v. Yashpal [(2009) 4 SCC 769] – *The Court used this case to emphasize that statements under Section 313 CrPC are not substantive evidence.*
• Fainul Khan v. State of Jharkhand [(2019) 9 SCC 549] – *The Court applied the principle that the statement under Section 313 CrPC cannot be the sole basis of conviction.*
• Mohd. Firoz v. State of M.P. [(2022) 7 SCC 443] – *The Court used this case to reinforce the principle that the statement under Section 313 CrPC is not a substitute for evidence.*
• Bishnu Prasad Sinha v. State of Assam [(2007) 11 SCC 467] – *The Court applied the principle that the purpose of Section 313 CrPC is to allow the accused to explain the circumstances, not to elicit incriminating statements.*
• Dehal Singh v. State of H.P. [(2010) 9 SCC 85] – *The Court used this case to emphasize that the statement under Section 313 CrPC cannot be used to fill gaps in the prosecution’s case.*
• Brajendrasingh v. State of M.P. [(2012) 4 SCC 289] – *The Court applied the principle that the statement under Section 313 CrPC cannot be the sole basis of conviction.*
• Sharad Birdhichand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra [(1984) 4 SCC 116] – *The Court used the principles for considering circumstantial evidence to highlight the need for a complete chain of evidence to prove guilt.*
• Hate Singh Bhagat Singh v. State of Madhya Pradesh [1951 SCC 1060] – *The Court used this case to support the principle that the statement under Section 313 CrPC should be considered in its entirety.*
• Shamu Balu Chaugule v. State of Maharashtra [(1976) 1 SCC 438] – *The Court applied the principle that the statement under Section 313 CrPC cannot be used to fill gaps in the prosecution’s case.*
• Paul v. State of Kerala [(2020) 3 SCC 115] – *The Court used this case to reinforce the principle that the statement under Section 313 CrPC is not a substitute for evidence.*
• Kalicharan v. State of U.P. [(2023) 2 SCC 583] – *The Court applied the principle that the statement under Section 313 CrPC cannot be the sole basis of conviction.*
• Nasib Singh v. State of Punjab [(2022) 2 SCC 89] – *The Court used this case to emphasize that the statement under Section 313 CrPC is not substantive evidence.*
• Jai Prakash Tiwari v. State of Madhya Pradesh [2022 SCC OnLine SC 966] – *The Court applied the principle that the statement under Section 313 CrPC cannot be the sole basis of conviction.*
• Satbir Singh v. State of Haryana [(2021) 6 SCC 1] – *The Court used this case to reinforce the principle that the statement under Section 313 CrPC is not a substitute for evidence.*
• Bable v. State of Chhattisgarh [(2012) 11 SCC 181] – *The Court applied the principle that the statement under Section 313 CrPC cannot be used to fill gaps in the prosecution’s case.*
• Selvi v. State of Karnataka [(2010) 7 SCC 263] – *The Court used this case to emphasize that the statement under Section 313 CrPC is not substantive evidence.*
• Shailendra Rajdev Pasvan v. State of Gujarat [(2020) 14 SCC 750] – *The Court emphasized the need for a conscientious approach in cases based on circumstantial evidence.*
• Munikrishna v. State [2022 SCC OnLine SC 1449] – *The Court highlighted the heavy burden on the prosecution to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt in cases based on circumstantial evidence.*
• Hanumant Govind Nargundkar v. State of Madhya Pradesh [(1952) 2 SCC 71] – *The Court reiterated the principle that the prosecution must prove its case beyond reasonable doubt.*

Final Decision

The Supreme Court acquitted Indrakunwar, setting aside the conviction by the Trial Court and the High Court. The Court held that the prosecution’s case was based on weak circumstantial evidence and that the appellant’s right to privacy had been violated. The Court emphasized that an accused is not obligated to disclose personal details when the prosecution has not proven its case beyond a reasonable doubt.

Significance of the Judgment

This judgment is significant for several reasons:

• Protection of Privacy: The judgment reinforces the importance of the right to privacy, particularly for women accused of crimes. It clarifies that a woman’s silence about personal matters cannot be used against her in a criminal trial.
• Limits on Section 313 CrPC: The judgment clarifies the scope of Section 313 of the CrPC, stating that an accused is not obligated to disclose private details when the prosecution has not proven its case. It emphasizes that the statement under Section 313 CrPC is not a substitute for evidence and cannot be the sole basis of conviction.
• Burden of Proof: The judgment reiterates the heavy burden on the prosecution to prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt, especially in cases based on circumstantial evidence. It emphasizes that suspicion and presumption cannot take the place of solid evidence.
• Impact on Future Cases: This judgment is likely to have a significant impact on future cases involving privacy and the rights of accused women. It sets a precedent for protecting the personal lives of women accused of crimes and ensures that their silence about private matters cannot be used against them.
• Emphasis on Fair Trial: The judgment underscores the importance of a fair trial and the need for the prosecution to establish a clear link between the accused and the crime. It highlights that the criminal justice system must respect the rights of the accused, including the right to privacy.

Flowchart of the Case