INDRAKUNWAR versus THE STATE OF CHHATTISGARH

Citation: [2023] 14 S.C.R. 959 · Decided: 19-10-2023 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: ABHAY S. OKA · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

cites 5 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

[2023] 14 S.C.R. 959 : 2023 INSC 934
959
CASE DETAILS
INDRAKUNWAR
v. 
THE STATE OF CHHATTISGARH
(Criminal Appeal No. 1730 of 2012)
OCTOBER 19, 2023 
[ABHAY S. OKA AND SANJAY KAROL, JJ.]
HEADNOTES
Issue for consideration: Whether, in explaining the purported 
incriminating circumstance against her, the convict-appellant ought to have 
disclosed, over and above denial of any relationship with the deceased 
child, the specifi cs of her miscarriage and its aftermath; particularly when 
the prosecution has failed to discharge its burden of establishing such 
relationship between the deceased and the convict -appellant. 
Constitution of India – Right to Privacy – Personal life of a woman 
accused of committing a crime – Failure of Prosecution to discharge 
its duty:
Held: 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) – In the instant case, the guilt has been placed on appellant-convict 
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 u/s. 313 CrPC) – This, in the Court’s view, was in 
itself suspect since she had been ‘deserted’ by her husband – Her statement, 
nowhere refl ects 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 dabri – Although there is a requirement by law 
960 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2023] 14 S.C.R.
to disclose the aspects required to adjudicate in a criminal matter, such duty 
cannot unreasonably and unwarrantedly step over the fundamental right of 
privacy. [Paras 27, 36]
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – s. 313 – Principles as evolved 
over period of time for statements u/s. 313 Cr.PC.:
Held: 1. The object, evident from the Section 313 Cr.PC. itself, is to 
enable the accused to themselves explain any circumstances appearing in 
the evidence against them; 2. The intent is to establish a dialogue between 
the Court and the accused – This process benefi ts the accused and aids the 
Court in arriving at the fi nal verdict; 3. The process enshrined is not a matter 
of procedural formality but is based on the cardinal principle of natural 
justice, i.e., audi alteram partem; 4. The ultimate test when concerned with 
the compliance of the Section is to enquire and ensure whether the accused 
got the opportunity to say his piece; 5. In such a statement, the accused may 
or may not admit involvement or any incriminating circumstance or may 
even off er an alternative version of events or interpretation – The accused 
may not be put to prejudice by any omission or inadequate questioning; 6. 
The right to remain silent or any answer to a question which may be false 
shall not be used to his detriment, being the sole reason; 7. This statement 
cannot form the sole basis of conviction and is neither a substantive nor 
a substitute piece of evidence – It does not discharge but reduces the 
prosecution’s burden of leading evidence to prove its case – They are to be 
used to examine the veracity of the prosecution’s case; 8. This statement 
is to be read as a whole – One part cannot be read in isolation; 9. Such a 
statement, as not on oath, does not qualify as a piece of evidence u/s. 3 of 
the Indian Evidence Act, 1872; however, the inculpatory aspect as may be 
borne from the statement may be used to lend credence to the case of the 
prosecution; 10. The circumstances not put to the accused while rendering 
his statement under the Section are to be excluded from consideration as 
no opportunity has been aff orded to him to explain them; 11. The Court is 
obligated to put, in the form of questions, all incriminating circumstances 
to the accused so as to give him an opportunity to articulate his defence – 
The defence so articulated must be carefully scrutinized and considered; 12. 
Non-compliance with the Section may cause prejudice to the accused and 
may impede the process of arriving at a fair decision. [Para 34]
96

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.