Jammu & Kashmir High Court Directs Construction of Overhead Bridge or Underpass on Ring Road for Safe Passage of Villagers    |     Minor Injuries No Bar for Framing Charges Under Section 307 IPC if Intent to Kill is Present: Supreme Court    |     Prosecution's Case Full of Glaring Doubts:  Supreme Court Overturns Conviction in Abduction and Murder Case    |     Allegations of Dowry Demand in FIR Found Vague and Driven by Civil Property Dispute: Supreme Court Quashes FIR and Chargesheet in Dowry-Cruelty Case    |     Local Police Failed to Perform its Duties: SC Directs New Investigating Officer in Property Dispute    |     Paternity Established Through SSC and Appointment Order, Legal Obligation to Maintain Unmarried Daughter: Andhra Pradesh High Court    |     No Appeal Shall Be Heard Without Disputed Tax Deposit: Bombay High Court Upholds Constitutionality of Section 96(b) of the Cantonment Act, 2006    |     Parties Must Choose Peace Over Litigation: Calcutta High Court Denies FIR Quashing in Family Dispute, Highlights Mediation Option    |     Punjab & Haryana High Court Quashes Recruitment of 1091 Assistant Professors and 67 Librarians In Punjab Due to Procedural Flaws    |     Res Judicata Bars Reconsideration of Adoption Validity in Second Round of Litigation: Jammu & Kashmir High Court    |     Candidates who use a party’s symbol must be deemed members of that party: Kerala High Court Upholds Disqualification for Defection    |     Inconsistencies in Eyewitness Accounts and Lack of Forensic Certainty Lead to Acquittal: Himachal Pradesh High Court Acquits Accused in Murder Case    |     Delhi High Court Quashes Reassessment Notices Under Section 148 Due to Invalid Sanction by JCIT    |     Summons Under PMLA for Further Investigation Does Not Infringe Right Against Self-Incrimination: Telangana HC    |     Termination During Probation Is Lawful if Concealment of Criminal Case Is Proven: Allahabad HC    |     Disproportionate Fine Cannot Be Imposed for Recovery of 1 Liter of Country-made Liquor: Patna High Court    |     Prosecution failed to prove identity of remains and establish murder beyond reasonable doubt: Orissa High Court Acquit Ex-Husband    |     Despite 12 Injuries on the Victim, No Intention to Kill Found: Rajasthan High Court Upholds Conviction Under Section 304 Part-II IPC    |     Governor’s sanction suffers from non-application of mind: Karnataka High Court Stays Governor’s Sanction for Investigation Against CM Siddaramaiah    |    

Right to Privacy Prevails: Acquits Woman allegedly Killing her Own Child: Supreme Court

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


In a significant legal decision, the right to privacy and the burden of proof beyond reasonable doubt have triumphed as the court acquitted a woman who had been convicted based on circumstantial evidence. Justices Abhay S. Oka and Sanjay Karol handed down the verdict on October 19, 2023, in a case that has far-reaching implications for the justice system.

The judgment underscores the importance of establishing guilt beyond a reasonable doubt when relying on circumstantial evidence. Justice Oka and Justice Karol stressed that "conviction ought to be recorded only in cases where all the links of the chain are complete, pointing only to the guilt of the accused and none else, also eliminating the element of his innocence." This sets a high standard for proving guilt in such cases.

The case revolved around the conviction of a woman under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, based primarily on the fact that she was a woman living alone and had been pregnant. However, the prosecution failed to establish any conclusive proof of a relationship between the accused and the deceased child, whose body was found under suspicious circumstances.

Justice Oka and Justice Karol emphasized that negative inferences cannot be drawn for questions or incriminating circumstances not put to the accused during their statement under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. They also highlighted the delicate balance between the duty to disclose relevant information and an individual's fundamental right to privacy.

The judgment delved into the right to privacy, emphasizing that it is "the underpinning of human dignity and is fundamental to the realization of human rights." The court cited previous cases and international human rights treaties to reinforce the significance of this right.

This decision serves as a reminder that the right to privacy is inviolable and that convictions based on circumstantial evidence must meet a high standard of proof. The court's ruling has far-reaching implications for future cases involving circumstantial evidence and the right to privacy, reaffirming the principle that guilt must be proven beyond a reasonable doubt.

Date of Decision: 19 October 2023

INDRAKUNWAR  vs THE STATE OF CHHATTISGARH 

Similar News