In Brief
A woman was convicted and sentenced to life imprisonment for allegedly killing and drowning her newborn child in a pond. On appeal, the Supreme Court examined whether the circumstantial evidence met the legal standard of proof beyond reasonable doubt. The Court found critical gaps: no witness saw the accused commit the act, no relationship between her and the deceased child was established, and medical evidence did not clarify whether the child died before or after birth. The Court held that the right to privacy—particularly a woman's reproductive autonomy—cannot be invaded by criminal procedure, and that conviction cannot rest on mere suspicion. The conviction was quashed as being based on presumption rather than solid evidence, reinforcing that gender-based stereotypes cannot substitute for proper proof.
The lawyer headnote and full judgment text are available to registered users.