Patna High Court acknowledged that another woman, a widow, was also living in the same part of the house. The high court addressed this by remarking that the make-up articles could not have belonged to the widow, implying she had no need for them due to her marital status.
New Delhi: On Wednesday(25th Sept), the Supreme Court criticized a high court’s remarks regarding make-up articles and a widow, calling the comments “highly objectionable” and inconsistent with the sensitivity and impartiality expected of a court of law.
The Supreme Court was hearing appeals against a Patna High Court judgment in a 1985 murder case involving the abduction and killing of a woman, allegedly to gain possession of her father’s house.
The high court had affirmed the conviction of five individuals and set aside the acquittal of two others, sentencing them to life imprisonment after they were initially cleared by the trial court.
A bench consisting of Justices Bela M Trivedi and Satish Chandra Sharma noted that the high court had examined whether the victim had been living in the house from which she was reportedly abducted.
The Supreme Court highlighted that, based on the testimonies of the woman’s maternal uncle, brother-in-law, and the investigating officer (IO), the high court determined the victim was indeed residing in the house.
The bench observed that, although the IO inspected the house, no direct evidence, aside from some make-up articles, was found to conclusively establish that the victim had been living there.
It was acknowledged that another woman, a widow, was also living in the same part of the house. The high court addressed this by remarking that the make-up articles could not have belonged to the widow, implying she had no need for them due to her marital status.
The Supreme Court found this reasoning legally flawed and deeply inappropriate, emphasizing that such sweeping statements were not aligned with the sensitivity and objectivity required in judicial proceedings, especially as they were not supported by evidence.
The court concluded that the mere presence of make-up articles could not be considered definitive proof that the victim resided in the house, particularly when another woman also lived there.
“The make-up articles were associated with the deceased based on reasoning that was entirely unacceptable and lacked any supporting evidence,” the bench observed.
The court noted that no personal belongings of the victim, such as clothing or footwear, were found anywhere in the house.
The bench highlighted that the victim died in August 1985 in Munger district, and her brother-in-law had reported that she was abducted by seven individuals from their residence.
An FIR was registered, and subsequently, a chargesheet was filed against the seven accused.
The trial court had convicted five of the accused of various offenses, including murder, while acquitting the other two of all charges.
In its ruling, the Supreme Court stated there was ‘no direct evidence’ on record to prove that the accused had committed the murder.
“Regarding motive, we must clarify that motive only becomes relevant when the evidence on record is sufficient to establish the elements of the offenses in question. Without proving the fundamental facts, the prosecution cannot rely on motive alone to succeed,” the bench noted.
The Supreme Court acquitted all seven accused of the charges and ordered their immediate release, if they were still in custody.
FOLLOW US FOR MORE LEGAL UPDATES ON YOUTUBE
