Second Appeal is Not a Forum for Rehearing or Reassessment of Evidence: Andhra Pradesh High Court Dismisses Partition Suit Appeal Failure of Justice Must Be Proved, Not Assumed: Calcutta High Court Upholds Murder Conviction Despite Charge Framing Lapse Bail is the Rule, Refusal is an Exception – Right to Liberty Cannot Be Ignored: Delhi High Court Grants Bail to Ivory Coast National in NDPS Case Courts Must Adopt a Justice-Oriented Approach in Matrimonial Cases: Gauhati High Court Condones Delay in Family Court Appeal FIR Quashing | Breath Analyzer Test Alone Cannot Prove Alcohol Consumption: Patna High Court Quashes FIR Under Bihar Prohibition Law Unregistered Writing Cannot Confer Ownership: Punjab & Haryana High Court Dismisses Second Appeal in Partition Dispute Allegations of Stalking and Criminal Intimidation Must Be Tested at Trial: Gujarat High Court Refuses to Quash FIR Bombay High Court Quashes Criminal Case Against Nestlé Officials Over Maggi Noodles Controversy No Shortcuts in NDPS Investigations – J&K High Court Rebukes Casual Approach of Investigating Officers Sessions Court Cannot Order Re-Investigation: Allahabad High Court Quashes Direction Against Jaypee Hospital If Official Witnesses Are Reliable, Independent Corroboration Is Not a Must:  Punjab & Haryana High Court Upholds NDPS Conviction No Service Tax Can Be Levied on Sale of Lottery Tickets: Supreme Court Rules That Lottery Distributors Are Not Agents Courts Cannot Be Silent Spectators When Justice Is Denied Due to Procedural Errors:  Punjab & Haryana High Court Upholds Recall of Bail Rejection Order Section 27 of the Evidence Act Requires Independent Corroboration—Mere Claims by Police Are Not Enough: Supreme Court on Flawed Investigation Confession to Police Is No Confession in Law: Supreme Court Acquits Man, Citing Inadmissibility of Statements Made in Custody Mere 'Last Seen Together' Is Not Enough for Conviction Unless It Forms a Complete Chain of Circumstantial Evidence: Supreme Court Sets Aside Life Sentence in 16-Year-Old Girl’s Murder Failure to Explain Wife’s Death Strengthens Guilt Under Section 106 of Evidence Act" – Supreme Court Restores Conviction in Murder Case Child Witness Testimony Cannot Be Discarded Solely on Grounds of Tutoring: Supreme Court Restores Conviction in Murder Case

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