'Can't step over fundamental right of privacy': SC acquits woman charged with killing her newborn

The Supreme Court, in its judgment, said that thrusting upon a woman the guilt of having killed a child without any proper evidence, simply because she was living alone in the village, reinforces the cultural stereotypes and gendered identities which this court has explicitly warned against. -- Writes ETV Bharat Sumit Saxena.

New Delhi:The Supreme Court has acquitted a woman accused of killing her newborn baby, saying that although there is a requirement by law to disclose the aspects required to adjudicate in a criminal matter, such duty cannot unreasonably and unwarrantedly step over the fundamental right of privacy. The apex court said thrusting upon a woman the guilt of having killed a child without any proper evidence, simply because she was living alone in the village, reinforces the cultural stereotypes and gendered identities which this court has explicitly warned against.

The apex court was dealing with an appeal filed by a woman challenging the Chhattisgarh High Court judgment, passed in April 2010, which upheld her conviction and life imprisonment sentence passed by the trial court in July 2005.

A bench comprising justices Abhay S. Oka and Sanjay Karol considered two questions in the matter: 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?

The second question: 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?

Justice Karol, who authored the judgement on behalf of the bench, said that awarding the punishment of life imprisonment requires due appreciation of evidence and cannot be awarded mechanically and in a perfunctory manner. He said what must be considered is whether the convict-appellant has no right of privacy of not disclosing the prosecution or the court as to what happened to her child which she was carrying in her womb, particularly when the prosecution failed to discharge the initial burden and onus of establishing the deceased, in any manner to be related to the accused?

The bench further queried isn't it, inherent in a lady the right of confidentiality and privacy in matters concerning her personal life, of not disclosing any circumstances, as may be required by law?

Justice Karol said in searching for answers to the questions above, it is pertinent for us to intervene when structures of injustice and persecution deeply entrenched in patriarchy are destructive of constitutional freedom. “The right to privacy is the underpinning of human dignity and is fundamental to the realization of human rights”, he said, adding that the right to privacy is regarded as one of the most crucial human rights in the contemporary day.

He said in many different countries and civilizations, privacy is cherished and the essence of a woman's fundamental right to equality and privacy, regarding private matters of bodily and psychological integrity is the ability to make autonomous decisions about her own body and reproductive choices. “It is entirely within the realm of privacy of a woman to decide whether or not to bear a child or abort her pregnancy (within the framework of law)”, said justice Karol.

The bench stressed that the right to privacy is inviolable and “unfortunately, the view taken and the language adopted by both the courts below lays to waste such a right inherent in the convict-appellant”.

Justice Karol said it is apparent that the guilt has been placed on her without any solid foundation thereto since no relationship of any nature whatsoever could be established between her and the deceased child discovered in the small water body- pond.

The bench noted that the conclusion drawn is simply on the basis that the convict-appellant was a woman living alone and had been pregnant (as admitted in the statement under 313 CrPC), and this, in the court's view, was in itself suspect since she had been ‘deserted’ by her husband.

The bench said, “Such a view being taken, i.e., thrusting upon a woman the guilt of having killed a child without any proper evidence, simply because she was living alone in the village, thereby connecting with one another two unrelated aspects; reinforces the cultural stereotypes and gendered identities which this Court has explicitly warned against”.

The bench said the woman's statement, nowhere reflects an answer to a question concerning the particulars of the child that she was admittedly carrying but denied that the deceased was not the one recovered from the pond. “Although there is a requirement by law to disclose the aspects required to adjudicate in a criminal matter, such duty cannot unreasonably and unwarrantedly step over the fundamental right of privacy”, said the bench.

The prosecution had alleged that the woman had allegedly conceived after she had physical relations with a co-villager and allegedly killed this child and threw the corpse into a pond. She was living alone in the village after her husband deserted her.

The trial court concluded the body of a newborn baby was found on September 14, 2004, and a few days before that, 2-3 days, the accused had delivered a child and sentenced her to imprisonment for life. The woman had said that she had not killed the child and was being falsely implicated.

Setting aside judgments passed by courts below, the apex court, in a judgment delivered on October 19, said: “We find the conviction recorded against the convict-appellant to be entirely based on mere presumption, with the actual evidence on record failing to establish the prosecution case much less beyond reasonable doubt. We are constrained to observe that the High Court has confirmed the view of the Trial Court awarding life imprisonment without supplying any cogent reasons therefore”.