CBI Can’t Prosecute When Bank Suffers No Loss: Andhra Pradesh High Court Discharges Bhimavaram Hospitals Directors in ₹1.5 Crore SBI Case Section 256 CrPC Cannot Be A Shield For An Accused Who Never Faced Trial: Allahabad High Court Restores 8 Cheque Bounce Complaints Minimum Wages Cannot Be Ignored While Determining Just Compensation: Andhra Pradesh High Court Re-Fixes Income of Deceased Mason, Enhances Interest to 7.5% 34 IPC | Common Intention Is Inferred From Manner Of Attack, Weapons Carried And Concerted Conduct: Allahabad High Court Last Date of Section 4 Publication Is Crucial—Error in Date Cannot Depress Market Value: Bombay High Court Enhances Compensation in Beed Land Acquisition Appeals Order 26 Rule 10-A CPC | Rarest of Rare: When a Mother Denies Her Own Child: Rajasthan High Court Orders DNA Test to Decide Maternity Acquittal Is Not a Passport Back to Uniform: Punjab & Haryana High Court Upholds Dismissal of Constable in NDPS Case Despite Trial Court Verdict Limitation Under Section 468 Cr.P.C. Cannot Be Ignored — But Section 473 Keeps the Door Open in the Interest of Justice: P&H HC Non-Stamping Renders A Document Inadmissible, Not Void – Defect Is Curable Once Duty Is Paid: Punjab & Haryana High Court Upholds Specific Performance MP High Court Upholds Ladli Behna Yojana Criteria; Rules Registration Deadlines and Age Limits Fall Under Executive Domain Criminal Courts Are Not Recovery Agents: Orissa High Court Grants Bail in ₹3.5 Crore Land Fraud Cases Citing Article 21 and Terminal Illness

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 

Latest Legal News