Published By: Pragati Pal
Last Updated: October 22, 2023, 20:40 IST
A bench of Justices Abhay S Oka and Sanjay Karol mentioned thrusting upon a lady the guilt of having killed a baby with none correct proof, just because she was residing alone in a village, reinforces the cultural stereotypes and gendered identities. (Representational picture: News18)
The prime courtroom mentioned sentencing somebody to life imprisonment requires due appreciation of proof, and it can’t be accomplished mechanically and in a perfunctory method
The Supreme Court has acquitted a lady convicted by a trial courtroom for killing her new child youngster whom she had allegedly conceived following her bodily relations with a co-villager, saying there was no conclusive proof to determine her guilt.
The prime courtroom mentioned sentencing somebody to life imprisonment requires due appreciation of proof, and it can’t be accomplished mechanically and in a perfunctory method.
A bench of Justices Abhay S Oka and Sanjay Karol mentioned thrusting upon a lady the guilt of having killed a baby with none correct proof, just because she was residing 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 highest courtroom mentioned. It added that it’s solely inside the realm of a lady’s privateness to determine whether or not or to not bear a baby or abort her being pregnant inside the framework of the regulation.
“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 the 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 courtroom noticed.
It mentioned having thought-about the gaps within the prosecution’s case, it can not agree with the courts beneath that the circumstances conclusively level 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 mentioned. The prime courtroom was listening to a plea filed by the girl, difficult a 2010 order of the Chhattisgarh High Court that upheld her conviction and life sentence.
(This story has not been edited by News18 employees and is printed from a syndicated information company feed – PTI)
