The Supreme Court has acquitted a woman convicted by a trial court for killing her newborn child whom she had allegedly conceived following her physical relations with a co-villager, saying there was no conclusive proof to establish her guilt.
The top court said sentencing someone to life imprisonment requires due appreciation of evidence, and it cannot be done mechanically and in a perfunctory manner.
The Supreme Court has acquitted a woman convicted by a trial court for killing her newborn child whom she had allegedly conceived following her physical relations with a co-villager, saying there was no conclusive proof to establish her guilt.
The top court said sentencing someone to life imprisonment requires due appreciation of evidence, and it cannot be done mechanically and in a perfunctory manner.
A bench of Justices Abhay S Oka and Sanjay Karol said thrusting upon a woman the guilt of having killed a child without any proper evidence, simply because she was living alone in a village, reinforces the cultural stereotypes and gendered identities.
"The right to privacy is inviolable. Unfortunately, the view taken and the language adopted by both the courts below lays to waste such a right inherent in the convict-appellant. 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 dabri.
"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 section 313, CrPC," the top court said.
It added that it is entirely within the realm of a woman's privacy to decide whether or not to bear a child or abort her pregnancy within the framework of law.
"It is a matter of record that none of the witnesses has seen the convict-appellant throwing the deceased child into the dabri. As hitherto observed, no conclusive proof, of any nature, of relationship had been put forth by the prosecution, no evidence has been led to cast doubt upon the version of the convict.
"The statement of the doctor is silent on the death of the deceased having occurred prior to or after birth, although in examination-in-chief, the doctor has deposed that the death of the deceased child was homicidal in nature. However, in the cross-examination, it is admitted that such a fact does not form part of the record, thereby calling into question the conclusion itself as it is a vital piece of
information that has been omitted," the apex court observed.
It said having considered the gaps in the prosecution's case, it cannot agree with the courts below that the circumstances conclusively point to the guilt of the convict.
"Given the foregoing discussion, 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 a 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," the bench said.
The top court was hearing a plea filed by the woman, challenging a 2010 order of the Chhattisgarh High Court that upheld her conviction and life sentence.
-With PTI Input