Indrakunwar vs. The State of Chhattisgarh
Background
The appellant, a woman living alone after being deserted by her husband, was convicted under Section 302 IPC (murder) for allegedly killing her newborn child and throwing the body into a pond, based purely on circumstantial evidence. Neither the Trial Court nor the High Court had any witness who saw her near the pond or who could establish that the dead infant found there was in fact her child. The conviction rested largely on the facts that she was pregnant, lived alone, and did not disclose what happened to her pregnancy.
Decision Breakdown
The Supreme Court found that none of the eight prosecution witnesses could establish any relationship between the deceased child and the appellant, nor had anyone seen her near the pond or throwing anything into it. The medical evidence did not even establish whether the child died before or after birth. The Court held that a woman has a fundamental right to privacy over her reproductive and bodily choices, and cannot be compelled to disclose the fate of her pregnancy where the prosecution has failed to establish the most basic link connecting her to the alleged crime. It also clarified that adverse inferences cannot be drawn from a Section 313 CrPC statement for questions that were never actually put to the accused. Finding the conviction based on mere suspicion, stereotype, and moral judgment about a woman living alone rather than on evidence, the Court acquitted her and set aside the conviction.
Lesson Learnt
A criminal conviction cannot rest on suspicion or social stereotyping (such as judging a woman for living alone or being pregnant outside marriage). The prosecution must prove every link in a chain of circumstantial evidence beyond reasonable doubt, and an accused's right to privacy over deeply personal matters cannot be treated as an admission of guilt.