Court: Supreme Court of India
Bench: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Abhay s. Oka, Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sanjay Karol
Date of Judgment: 19 October 2023
Citation: Criminal Appeal No. 1730 of 2012
Background: The case of Indrakunwar vs. State of Chhattisgarh arose out of a complex intersection of societal prejudice, procedural oversight, and lack of scientific investigation. The appellant, Indrakunwar, hailed from a tribal and economically disadvantaged background in a rural area of Chhattisgarh. The case began in the early 2000s, when a tragic incident involving the death of a newborn child occurred in her village. Due to prevalent social taboos and stigma surrounding unmarried motherhood and questions of female honour, suspicion quickly fell on Indrakunwar, who was believed to have been pregnant but was not seen with a child after her delivery. In a socio-cultural setting where women, especially those from tribal and marginalized communities, often face entrenched discrimination, these assumptions led to criminal proceedings being initiated against her. With minimal resources and limited access to legal representation, she was tried and convicted by the Sessions Court based on circumstantial evidence. The High Court later affirmed this conviction. It was only when the case reached the Supreme Court that the deeper legal and constitutional questions surrounding evidence, rights of the accused, and the limits of judicial presumption were thoroughly scrutinized, leading to a much-needed correction in the course of justice.
Facts: The case concerns Indrakunwar, a tribal woman who was convicted of murdering a newborn child allegedly born out of wedlock. The origins of the case lie in the discovery of a dead infant near her residence in a village in Chhattisgarh. The prosecution alleged that the Appellant was separated from her husband and living alone in the village. During this time, she had relations with another villager named Baiga Gond and conceived a child. The local community suspected Indrakunwar of giving birth to the child and abandoning or killing it During the trial, the prosecution examined Eleven witnesses, five of whom did not support the allegations, including the complainant in the case,None of the witnesses could verify the circumstances of the Appellant’s pregnancy. The police investigation revealed that Indrakunwar had been pregnant before the incident, and soon after, she was not seen with any child. A post-mortem was conducted on the deceased infant, and medical opinion stated that the child had been born alive and had died due to asphyxia, which was consistent with smothering the doctor also testified that she had examined the Appellant and found that she had recently delivered a child, but it was not verified that the deceased child belonged to her.
The prosecution’s case was built entirely on circumstantial evidence. Key points included witness testimonies stating that Indrakunwar was pregnant, her subsequent physical changes indicating recent childbirth, and the presence of the dead child near her house. No direct eyewitness evidence was presented, and crucially, there was no DNA or forensic testing conducted to establish a biological link between Indrakunwar and the deceased infant. Furthermore, no recovery of any incriminating material or confession was made.
The Appellant chose to remain silent regarding the aftermath circumstances in her statement, The trial court, relying heavily on the fact that Indrakunwar did not provide an Proper explanation under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure about the incident or the child’s death, convicted her of murder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code. The conviction was later upheld by the Chhattisgarh High Court. The rationale was that, being the person last seen with the child, and in the absence of any explanation from her side, her guilt was presumed without Re-Consideration of the Evidence. Eventually, the matter was brought before the Supreme Court of India through a criminal appeal.
Issues Raised: 1.Whether the conviction based solely on circumstantial evidence, without direct proof, was legally sustainable.
2.Whether the accused’s silence during the Section 313 CrPC examination could be treated as incriminating.
3.Whether failure to conduct DNA testing or establish a clear link between the deceased child and the accused was fatal to the prosecution’s case.
4.Whether the constitutional protection under Article 20(3) of the Indian Constitution was violated.
5.Whether the appellant’s right to privacy can shield her from being compelled to disclose personal facts not supported by the prosecution.
6.Whether courts below erred in relying on stereotypes and assumptions unsupported by law and evidence.
Contentions: Both sides had strong contentions they were:
Contentions on Behalf of the Petitioner (Indrakunwar)
The appellant contended that the entire case depended on assumptions, society’s prejudice, and one-sided circumstantial evidence. There was no direct evidence linking her to the deceased child or proving the child was born alive and subsequently murdered. The petitioner argued that the conviction, which was solely based on circumstantial evidence, could not be sustained in the absence of a complete and unbroken chain of circumstances that pointed conclusively to her guilt. It was highlighted that the prosecution failed to establish any direct link between the petitioner and the deceased child. There was no DNA evidence to prove that the child was biologically hers, nor any credible testimony that confirmed her pregnancy or delivery. The petitioner further submitted that five of the eleven witnesses turned hostile, and in remaining ones, none of them established guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
It was contended that her right to protection against self-incrimination was violated. It was also contended that the petitioner’s silence during the Section 313 CrPC examination could not be used against her. Invoking Article 20(3) of the Constitution, the defence maintained that no adverse inference could be drawn from her decision not to testify or respond, especially when the prosecution had not discharged its burden of proof. Furthermore, the petitioner emphasized that the failure of the State to conduct a DNA test or gather forensic evidence severely weakened the prosecution’s case. The absence of such critical scientific verification was argued to be a significant lapse in the investigation.
Another crucial contention raised was the violation of the petitioner’s right to privacy and dignity .Drawing upon the Puttaswamy judgment, it was argued that the right to bodily autonomy and reproductive freedom cannot be infringed without compelling state interest or evidence. The petitioner’s silence and her private medical history could not be used as a substitute for proof. The defence also condemned the courts below for having relied on social stereotypes, especially assumptions about the character and morality of a woman living alone, to infer guilt. Such reasoning, it was submitted, was constitutionally impermissible and legally unsound.
Contentions on Behalf of the Respondent (State of Chhattisgarh)
The State, defending the concurrent findings of the Trial Court and the High Court, argued that the chain of circumstantial evidence was sufficient to establish guilt. It pointed out that the body of a newborn was found in a pond near the petitioner’s residence, and medical evidence indicated that the petitioner had recently delivered a baby. According to the prosecution, this suggested that the child was hers and that she had disposed of the body to avoid social stigma. The State emphasized that while no eyewitnesses were available, circumstantial evidence must be viewed in totality.
The State also argued that the petitioner’s silence during the Section 313 CrPC examination could be legitimately considered by the court. It submitted that an accused has a duty to explain the incriminating circumstances appearing in evidence, and her failure to do so added weight to the prosecution’s case. The prosecution maintained that the societal circumstances and evidence of recent delivery, when combined with the discovery of the body, supported the inference that the petitioner had killed the child.
Moreover, the State asserted that the right to privacy could not override the need for justice in a murder case. While constitutional protections are crucial, they cannot be used as a shield to evade accountability in a case involving the death of a newborn. The prosecution also contended that the courts below had applied settled principles of circumstantial evidence and had reasonably concluded that the petitioner was guilty, and thus her conviction required no interference. The prosecution, however, utilized the pregnancy of the appellant, finding of the body of the child, and medical opinion regarding recent delivery to contend that she had murdered the infant. They were, however, not able to link the accused directly with the deceased or the cause or the time of death beyond suspicion.
Rationale: The Supreme Court’s reasoning in acquitting Indrakunwar was rooted deeply in the foundational principles of criminal jurisprudence and constitutional protections. The Court held that there was a glaring absence of direct evidence and that the circumstantial evidence presented did not establish a conclusive or unbroken chain of guilt. It emphasized that a conviction cannot be sustained unless the prosecution proves the case beyond reasonable doubt and eliminates all other possible hypotheses. In this case, the prosecution failed to prove essential facts, including whether the deceased child belonged to the appellant and whether the death was homicidal.
The Court condemned the reliance on the appellant’s silence as evidence of guilt. The Bench noted that under Section 313 of the CrPC, while the accused may be questioned about incriminating circumstances, their failure to respond or provide a convincing explanation cannot, in itself, be considered substantive evidence. The Court reiterated the constitutional safeguard under Article 20(3) of the Indian Constitution, which protects against self-incrimination. Drawing on precedents such as Sharad Birdhichand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra (1984) and Selvi v. State of Karnataka (2010), the Court reinforced that conviction cannot be based on mere presumption or moral judgment.
Additionally, the Court was critical of the investigative process. The prosecution failed to conduct a DNA test, which could have provided scientific confirmation of the maternity link between Indrakunwar and the deceased child. Nor was there any concrete evidence that the death was caused by the accused or that it was not a natural death. The absence of forensic, eyewitness, or credible circumstantial evidence severely undermined the prosecution’s case.
The Court also criticized the Trial Court and the High Court for drawing inferences of guilt based on the gender and social status of the appellant. Emphasizing the constitutional right of privacy, specifically in relation to issues of bodily control and reproductive decision-making, the Court held that no adverse inference could be drawn from the silence or failure to speak of the appellant. The Court held that the prosecution had failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt and accordingly quashed the conviction, acquitting Indrakunwar of all charges and ordering her immediate release. The judgment also highlighted the socio-economic vulnerability of the accused and the need for courts to adopt a more empathetic and constitutionally sensitive approach in cases involving individuals from marginalized communities. The Court ultimately found that the conviction was not only unsupported by legal standards but also amounted to a miscarriage of justice.
Defects of law: The judgment brought to light several systemic and legal defects that contributed to the wrongful conviction of the appellant. First, the prosecution’s failure to conduct a DNA test constituted a major evidentiary lapse. In a case where maternity and identity of the deceased child were crucial, forensic confirmation could have been pivotal in establishing or refuting guilt. The investigating authorities relied instead on circumstantial suspicion and medical inference, which was not sufficient under the law.
Second, the interpretation of Section 313 CrPC by the lower courts was legally flawed. The trial and appellate courts treated the accused’s silence as incriminating without any corroborating evidence, effectively reversing the burden of proof. This stands in direct violation of the presumption of innocence and the constitutional right under Article 20(3).
Third, the courts displayed a troubling tendency to conflate moral and legal judgments, particularly in suggesting that the appellant had a motive due to the child being “illegitimate.” The presumption that a woman would commit infanticide solely to protect her honour is not only a dangerous stereotype but legally unsustainable in the absence of proof.
Fourth, Appellant privacy and dignity were questioned by equalising her silence with her guilt, that’s a big loophole for justice system. the silence of an accused regarding an aspect of their personal life cannot be treated as an incriminating circumstance to convict them of the offence of homicide.
Finally, there was an evident disregard for procedural fairness. The case against Indrakunwar proceeded without ensuring that she had access to adequate legal representation or an opportunity to challenge the forensic and circumstantial claims made against her. These procedural lapses exposed broader deficiencies in the functioning of the criminal justice system when it comes to protecting vulnerable defendants.
Inference: In this case, the Supreme Court of India held that the right to privacy includes the right of an accused to remain silent when giving their statement in a criminal trial. Therefore, the silence of an accused regarding an aspect of their personal life cannot be treated as an incriminating circumstance to convict them of the offence. The decision of the Supreme Court in Indrakunwar vs. State of Chhattisgarh is a landmark ruling in reaffirming the legal standards for conviction based on circumstantial evidence also judgement corrected grave error by trial and High court where conviction was based more on social prejudice than on concrete evidence. Decision reinforced Right to Privacy and Bodily Autonomy Woman’s reproductive choices and private life can’t be criminalised without legal justification .It serves as a powerful reminder that constitutional safeguards, such as the presumption of innocence and the right against self-incrimination, must be protected. The case also underscores the importance of forensic evidence in modern criminal investigations and the need for careful adherence to procedural fairness, particularly when the accused belongs to a socially or economically disadvantaged group. This judgment has broader implications beyond the individual case. The case drew attention in legal and human rights for its bold stance against institutional prejudice. Many scholars appreciated the judgement for speaking against systematic injustice toward women by her character assassination. It calls for reforms in police investigation techniques, increased access to legal aid, and better training for trial judges in interpreting constitutional protections. This case exposed poor investigation like failure to forensic evidence, mismanagement of witness testimonies . The Court’s humane and principled approach sets a precedent for future cases where circumstantial evidence is used without due diligence or scientific backing. Ultimately, the acquittal of Indrakunwar is not just a correction of a legal error but a reaffirmation of the core values of the Indian justice system: fairness, dignity, and due process: The judgment strengthens the jurisprudence on Article 20(3) and Article 21, emphasizing protection from self-incrimination and the right to a dignified life. It places the individual at the centre of constitutional justice, making it clear that the courts must act as guardians of dignity, not as enforcers of social morality. The case sparked discussion around the criminalization of single motherhood and how society often marginalizes women who do not conform to traditional roles. It ignited conversations on the misuse of circumstantial evidence in rural and socio-economically backward settings where legal literacy is minimal.
References:1.Indrakunwar v. State of Chhattisgarh, Criminal Appeal No. 1415 of 2011, (2023) SCC OnLine SC 1244.
2. Justice K.S. Puttaswamy (Retd.) v. Union of India, (2017) 10 SCC 1
3. The Constitution of India, art. 20(3), art. 21
4. Indian Penal Code(sec.302) https://www.indiacode.nic.in/repealedfileopen?rfilename=A1860-45.pdf
5. Code of Criminal Procedure,1973(sec.313) https://www.indiacode.nic.in/bitstream/123456789/15272/1/the_code_of_criminal_procedure,_1973.pdf
6. Sharad Birdhichand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra, (1984) 4 SCC 116.
7. Vrinda Bhandari & Ujwala Uppaluri,“The Supreme Court’s Right to Privacy Decision: Reading the Puttaswamy Judgment,” 13 NUJS L. Rev. 123 (2020) https://nujslawreview.org/articles-archives/
9. Aparna Chandra, “Gender Stereotyping in Judicial Reasoning,” in Law and Society in India (Oxford University Press, 2019) https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/pdf/10.1080/24730580.2021.1996077
Bhavika Singh Parmar
Manipal University Jaipur