The Supreme Court of India upheld life imprisonment of a Rajasthan man for burning his wife over a domestic dispute. Justices Sanjay Karol and N. K. Singh highlighted patriarchy and persistent domestic violence reflecting deep-rooted social issues.
NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court recently upheld the life sentence of a Rajasthan man who killed his newlywed wife by dousing her with kerosene and setting her on fire after insisting she cook for him.
A bench comprising Justices Sanjay Karol and N.K. Singh observed that despite legal reforms and economic progress over decades, patriarchy remains entrenched in everyday life in India, with domestic abuse and violence against women reflecting a deeply flawed social order.
The Court remarked,
“patriarchy still permeates the everyday… practices such as domestic abuse or even extreme acts like burning a wife persist not as aberrations, but as indications of a disease afflicted social order,”
The judges expressed regret that the constitutional guarantees of equality and the right to life continue to be out of reach for many women, even nearly eight decades after independence. The bench noted that although literacy rates and economic indicators have improved, control within households continues to be dominated by men and prevailing social expectations still require working women to shoulder domestic responsibilities.
The bench observed,
“Gender Roles do not apply strictly anymore in many urban areas. One cannot assume that all house-hold related work falls to the woman, whereas it is only the male who is tasked with bread winning. Yet, in rural and semi-urban scenarios, patriarchy remains a facet of everyday life. Authority within the household is still overwhelmingly male, and women’s autonomy is often conditional and constrained. Even if the woman earns, it would still be expected of her that she would set the house right before leaving for work, and busily engage herself in similar work including preparation of meals, when she returns from work,”
The case arose from an October 2012 incident in Bundi, Rajasthan. Shankar had married Sugna Bai about a month earlier. Because of his heavy drinking and violence, she went back to her parental home. Shankar tracked her down and demanded she return immediately to prepare fresh food for him.
When she complied and began cooking, a drunken Shankar assaulted her, poured kerosene over her, locked the room and set her on fire. Neighbours and relatives extinguished the flames and rushed her to hospital, where she gave a dying declaration to a magistrate before succumbing to her injuries four days later.
A trial court in Bundi convicted Shankar of murder in 2014 and sentenced him to life imprisonment, a decision the Rajasthan High Court upheld in 2019. Shankar then appealed to the Supreme Court.
Before the Supreme Court, Shankar’s counsel challenged the credibility of the dying declaration, arguing the magistrate had not properly certified Sugna’s mental fitness and alleging that her parents had coached her beforehand.
The Court rejected those contentions. It found that the duty doctor had duly examined and certified Sugna’s fitness to make a statement. Although some eyewitnesses turned hostile during trial, the medical evidence of burn injuries fully corroborated the dying declaration.
The Supreme Court held that the prosecution had established guilt beyond reasonable doubt and that Sugna’s dying declaration was reliable.
In a concluding postscript, the Court reflected on the state of women’s rights in India, noting the persistence of dowry deaths and citing statistics that over 4.48 lakh crimes against women were recorded in 2023.
The bench observed,
“After decades of laws, schemes, reforms, and judicial recognition of equality across workplaces, homes, personal relationships, and even the armed forces, why does the control over women’s bodies, choices, and lives still persist so deeply within society? Perhaps, the answer lies only with ‘We, the People of India’,”
Shankar was represented by Senior Advocate Kavita Vadia with advocates Tabrez Ahmad, Syed Mehdi Imam and Syeda Aaliya Fatima. The State’s counsel were Divynk Panwar and Nidhi Jaswal.
Case Title: Shankar vs. State of Rajasthan
FOLLOW US FOR MORE LEGAL UPDATES ON YOUTUBE