Shankar vs State Of Rajasthan

Court
Supreme Court
<div> 2026 INSC 315<br /> REPORTABLE <br /> IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA <br /> CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION <br /> <b> </b><br /> <b>CRIMINAL APPEAL NO……………………OF 2026 </b><br /> (@Special Leave Petition (Crl.)No.13899 OF 2025) <br /> <br /> <br /> SHANKAR … APPELLANT(S) <br /> <br /> VERSUS <br /> <br /> STATE OF RAJASTHAN … RESPONDENT(S) <br /> <br /> <b>J U D G M E N T </b><br /> <b> </b><br /> <b>SANJAY KAROL, J. </b><br /> <b> </b><br /> Leave granted. <br /> <b>2.</b> Shankar, the appellant was accused of having beaten up, <br /> poured kerosene over his wife – Sugna Bai, and killed her by <br /> setting her on fire. The Trial Court, Sessions Judge, Bundi, in <br /> Sessions Case No.249/2012 in terms of judgment dated <br /> Signature Not Verified<br /> Digitally signed by<br /> RAJNI MUKHI 10.12.2014 sentenced him to life imprisonment under Section <br /> Date: 2026.04.04<br /> 13:55:29 IST<br /> Reason:<br /> Crl.A…of 2026 @ SLP(Crl)No.13899 of 2025 Page <b>1</b> of <b>18</b> <br /> <br /><br /> 302 and rigorous imprisonment for one year under Section 342, <br /> 1<br /> Indian Penal Code 1860 . Fines of Rs.1000/- each for both the <br /> offences was also imposed, and simple imprisonment for one <br /> month was indicated to be suffered by him in the event of default. <br /> Criminal Appeal No.65 of 2015 was dismissed by the learned <br /> Division Bench by judgment dated 20.08.2019. Shankar, now is <br /> before this Court, asking us to overturn his concurrent conviction. <br /> <b>3.</b> The facts, leading up to the position as indicated above was <br /> that the deceased had married the appellant about a month prior <br /> to her death on 19.10.2012 and within approximately 20 days the <br /> relationship had taken a sour turn on account of alleged excessive <br /> consumption of alcohol and the former possessing a violent <br /> streak. The deceased had apparently gone to her parental home <br /> when the appellant demanded that she return home immediately <br /> and make fresh food for him. While she was complying with <br /> such a demand, the appellant beat her up and, while doing so was <br /> allegedly drunk. Although she managed to free herself and move <br /> away, the appellant allegedly poured kerosene and threw a lit <br /> matchstick on her. Resultantly, she screamed causing the <br /> neighbours and those nearby including the appellant, to come to <br /> her aid. This included pouring water and also using blanket to <br /> quell the flame. Parents of the deceased who had, by this time, <br /> <br /> 1<br /> IPC <br /> Crl.A…of 2026 @ SLP(Crl)No.13899 of 2025 Page <b>2</b> of <b>18</b> <br /> <br /><br /> reached the scene of incident called the ambulance and she was <br /> taken to MBSH Hospital, Rajasthan for treatment. <br /> <b>4.</b> The FIR was recorded as under: <br /> “Statement Smt. Sugna Bai W/o Shankar D/o Bheru <br /> caste Bhil age 20 years R/O Near Power House, Dabi <br /> PS, Dabi District Bundi, presently Dhaneshwar PS, <br /> Dabi District Bundi (Rajasthan), under treatment, <br /> admitted in Burn Ward, Bed No.3, MBSH Hospital <br /> (Rajasthan), Date 15-10-12, Time 5.20 pm, on <br /> request, stated in the form that I was living with my <br /> husband at the above mentioned address in a rented <br /> room in the house of Shri Gulab Chand S/o <br /> Gajanand Ji Kalal in village Dhaneshwar, my <br /> parental home is also in village Dhaneshwar. About <br /> a month before my relationship with my x-husband <br /> Ramesh S/o Nanda caste Bhil resident of Dabi broke <br /> down, with the consent of my parents, I had a love <br /> married with Shankar S/o Modhu caste Bhil resident <br /> of Dabi, presently Dhaneshwar. He kept me well for <br /> about 20 days, but for the last 10-12 days, my <br /> husband Shankar used to beat me up after drinking <br /> alcohol every day and did not allow me to talk to <br /> anyone. Today, on 15-10-12, at about 12:30 PM, I <br /> had gone to my father’s house to meet my mother, <br /> where my husband Shankar came and said, come <br /> home and make rotis, I am hungry. As soon as I said <br /> that, I came from home to our rented room and came <br /> and started cutting ladyfinger to make vegetables. <br /> Then my husband Shankar came who was drunk. As <br /> soon as he came, he started beating me with kicks <br /> and punches and strangled me, from which I was <br /> freed with great difficulty. Then a plastic bottle kept <br /> in the room was filled with about half a bottle of <br /> kerosene oil. He locked the room from inside and <br /> poured kerosene on me and set me on fire with a <br /> matchstick and opened the latch from inside and ran <br /> away. When I shouted, he came back outside and <br /> threw a blanket on the fire on my body. At that very <br /> moment, the tenant living in the adjacent room, <br /> Crl.A…of 2026 @ SLP(Crl)No.13899 of 2025 Page <b>3</b> of <b>18</b> <br /> <br /><br /> whose name and address I do not know, came <br /> running. My husband ran outside and the tenant <br /> woman poured water on me and after wetting the <br /> blanket, put it on me then my fire was extinguished. <br /> Later whoever heard about it came running. <br /> Somebody informed my parents and they also came <br /> running to my room and called 108 ambulance, <br /> which brought me for treatment and got me admitted <br /> to Bada Safakhana Kota, where I am undergoing <br /> treatment. Due to the burns, my whole body <br /> including face has blisters and the skin has torn. SD <br /> Ni. Thumb impression Sugna Bai Police Station <br /> Debi District Bundi Bumukam MBSH Burn ward <br /> Kota/Date 15-10-12 Time 5.45 PM Action Police. It <br /> is certified that the above mentioned form statement <br /> of the victim Smt. Sugna Bai W/O Shankar D/O <br /> Bheru caste Bhil age 20 years R/O present <br /> Dhaneshwar Jair admitted in Burn Ward Bed No. 3 <br /> MBSH Kota, should be written down word by word <br /> as per the statement given by the victim, please read <br /> it out loud and consider it to be correct. When the <br /> body of the victim was examined, the skin on <br /> forehead, left cheek, beard, hands and entire body <br /> was burnt due to fire. This has happened. They will <br /> be medically examined. Text of the form. <br /> From the search and inspection, the case falls under <br /> sections 323,307 IPC, hence, a case was registered <br /> at the return at police station. ASI was busy on the <br /> spot and investigation was commenced. <br /> Sd Inspector <br /> Thumb Sugana Bai <br /> Sd Gopal Lal <br /> ASI PS-Dabi/Date 15.10.12 <br /> Time 10 PM. <br /> Police action Taken- <br /> The above mentioned form statement of Smt. <br /> Sugana Bai W/o Shankar caste Bhil, age 20 years <br /> R/O near Power House, Dabi, presently Dhaneshwar <br /> PS Dabi ( Bundi), under treatment, admitted in MBS <br /> Crl.A…of 2026 @ SLP(Crl)No.13899 of 2025 Page <b>4</b> of <b>18</b> <br /> <br /><br /> Hospital Burn Ward Bed No. 3, Kota was brought <br /> and presented by Gopal Lal ASI I/C police station. <br /> From the written form statement, the crime under <br /> section 323, 307 IPC is found to fall under the <br /> category, hence, case No. 220/12, Section above, <br /> was registered and investigation was started.” <br /> <br /> <b>5.</b> Upon completion of investigation, challan was presented <br /> for trial. To establish its case, the prosecution examined 15 <br /> witnesses and exhibited 23 documents. The accused did not lead <br /> any oral evidence and only furnished only one document in <br /> defence. In his statement under Section 313 Code of Criminal <br /> 2<br /> Procedure, 1973 he pled innocence and deliberate false <br /> implication. The findings of the Trial Court are tabulated as <br /> below: <br /></div><table><thead><tr><th>Sl.No.</th><th>Point for&lt;br&gt;consideration</th><th>Relevant&lt;br&gt;paragraphs</th><th>Conclusion</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>1.</td><td>Whether the death of&lt;br&gt;Smt. Sugna Bai was not&lt;br&gt;natural but was caused&lt;br&gt;as a result of the injuries&lt;br&gt;caused by the burning of&lt;br&gt;her body with fire&lt;br&gt;substance before death.</td><td>9-13</td><td>Death of Sugna Bai&lt;br&gt;was not natural and&lt;br&gt;caused by injuries&lt;br&gt;due to igneous&lt;br&gt;substance.</td></tr></tbody></table><div><br /> <br /> 2<br /> Cr.PC <br /> Crl.A…of 2026 @ SLP(Crl)No.13899 of 2025 Page <b>5</b> of <b>18</b> <br /> <br /><br /></div><table><thead><tr><th>2.&lt;br&gt;3.</th><th>Did the accused&lt;br&gt;Shankar voluntarily&lt;br&gt;restrain his wife Smt.&lt;br&gt;Sugna Bai Bhil&lt;br&gt;(deceased) in a rented&lt;br&gt;room in the house of&lt;br&gt;Gulab Chand Kalal&lt;br&gt;situated in Munja&lt;br&gt;Dhaneshwar at about&lt;br&gt;12-12.30 PM on&lt;br&gt;15.10.2012 and&lt;br&gt;wrongfully confined her&lt;br&gt;by locking the room&lt;br&gt;from inside.&lt;br&gt;Whether the accused&lt;br&gt;Shankar with the intent&lt;br&gt;to commit culpable&lt;br&gt;homicide of his wife&lt;br&gt;Smt. Sugna Bai Bhil, on&lt;br&gt;the said date, time and&lt;br&gt;place, voluntarily brunt&lt;br&gt;her by pouring kerosene&lt;br&gt;oil on her body and&lt;br&gt;setting her on fire with&lt;br&gt;an igneous substance&lt;br&gt;(match stick) and as a&lt;br&gt;result of the injuries&lt;br&gt;caused by the burning&lt;br&gt;she died on 19.10.2012&lt;br&gt;at 7 .a.m. in Maharao&lt;br&gt;Bhim Singh Hospital,&lt;br&gt;Kota, while undergoing&lt;br&gt;treatment. Under these&lt;br&gt;circumstances the&lt;br&gt;accused committed the&lt;br&gt;murder of his wife Smt.&lt;br&gt;Sugna Bai Bhil.</th><th>14-55</th><th>The prosecution has&lt;br&gt;been successful in&lt;br&gt;proving the&lt;br&gt;offences against the&lt;br&gt;appellant under&lt;br&gt;Sections 342 and&lt;br&gt;302 IPC beyond&lt;br&gt;reasonable doubt.</th></tr></thead><tbody></tbody></table><div><br /> Crl.A…of 2026 @ SLP(Crl)No.13899 of 2025 Page <b>6</b> of <b>18</b> <br /> <br /><br /></div><table><thead><tr><th>4.</th><th>If yes then what will&lt;br&gt;be the punishment?</th><th>57-64</th><th>Particulars&lt;br&gt;already&lt;br&gt;mentioned in&lt;br&gt;para 1 (supra)</th></tr></thead><tbody></tbody></table><div><br /> <br /> <b>6. </b> On appeal, the High Court found the view taken by the <br /> Trial Court to be entirely justified, including the reliance placed <br /> on the dying declaration of the deceased. As such, the conviction <br /> and sentence of the appellant was confirmed. <br /> <b>7. </b> We have heard Ms. Kaveeta Wadia, learned senior counsel <br /> for the appellant and Mr. Divynk Panwar, learned counsel for the <br /> respondent-State. <b> </b> At the outset, it must be stated that the scope <br /> of interference <b> </b> in <b> </b> concurrent findings of conviction, is well- <br /> settled, as being fairly restricted. It would only be permissible <br /> for this Court to do so if the Courts below had committed <br /> manifest errors in law, misdirected itself in appreciating <br /> evidence, or completely missed out crucial pieces of evidence <br /> that would have bearing on the overall outcome of the case. The <br /> only aspect that remains to be seen is whether any of these criteria <br /> above, or any other ones of the recognised parameters, are met. <br /> <b>8. </b> The dying declaration which forms the basis of <br /> punishment awarded to the appellant, is not appended to the <br /> record placed before this Court. We record our surprise on that <br /> count, particularly given that it is the most essential document in <br /> Crl.A…of 2026 @ SLP(Crl)No.13899 of 2025 Page <b>7</b> of <b>18</b> <br /> <br /><br /> a case of this nature. In these circumstances, we have no choice <br /> but to reproduce for reference, the relevant portion of the <br /> judgment of the Trial Court as follows:- <br /> “Dying statement Exhibit P.20 has been recorded by <br /> PW. 12 Ajay Kumar Sharma, the then Additional <br /> Civil Judge (Special Court) No.4, Kota in the form <br /> of question and answer and before recording this <br /> statement, the clinical opinion has been taken on the <br /> back side of the paper of the same statement itself in <br /> which doctor has shown Sugna Bai to be competent <br /> to make the said statement. It is also mentioned on <br /> the same page that Sugna Bai has been identified by <br /> Gopal Lal Meena, ASI and the endorsement to this <br /> effect bears the signature of Gopal Lal Meena. The <br /> dying declaration Exhibit P.20 is based on only 05 <br /> questions and their short answers in the form of <br /> question and answer. Here the said questions and <br /> their answers are being written as follows:- <br /> Question.1Who did this to you? <br /> Answer – My husband poured kerosene on me and <br /> set me on fire. <br /> Question.2When did you get burnt? <br /> Answer - I was burnt in my rented room at 12 noon. <br /> Then my husband ran away. <br /> Question.3What was it about which you were burnt? <br /> Answer - my husband drinks alcohol and suspects <br /> me. If I look at anyone else, he fights. <br /> Question.4 Who came to save? <br /> Answer - There is a tenant near our house, his wife <br /> saved him. I don’t know the name. <br /> Questions.5 Who lives in the room? <br /> Answer- My husband and I live here. <br /> Crl.A…of 2026 @ SLP(Crl)No.13899 of 2025 Page <b>8</b> of <b>18</b> <br /> <br /><br /> On this dying declaration (Exhibit P.20) the thumb <br /> impression of Sugna Bai (deceased) is marked on. At <br /> the end of this declaration, the said Magistrate put <br /> his seal on it and has been signed.” <br /> <br /> <b>9.</b> Section 32 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 and Section <br /> 26 of its successor, Bhartiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 deal with <br /> dying declarations. Generally speaking, these declarations enjoy <br /> a special position given the timing and the nature thereof. This <br /> position rests on a philosophical understanding that when a <br /> person is about to meet his maker or in other words the oncoming <br /> of death and its finality is imminent, considerations which may <br /> force a person to speak other than the truth pale into <br /> insignificance and what does fall from them would, therefore, be <br /> only the truth. They are exceptions to the rule of hearsay and, if <br /> a Court finds them consistent, believable and free of tutoring, it <br /> can convict the person named therein. This Court has, in a <br /> number of judgments including one by one of us (Sanjay Karol, <br /> 3<br /> J.) in <b><i>Manjunath v. State of Karnataka</i></b> <b>, </b> after considering the <br /> law on the issue culled out the applicable principles. <br /> <b>10.</b> In assailing his concurrent conviction, one of the grounds <br /> urged by the appellant was “… <i>the magistrate while recording the </i><br /> <i>dying declaration of the deceased has reported that the mental </i><br /> <i>condition of the victim is not good and not in a position to give </i><br /> <br /> 3<br /> 2023 SCC OnLine SC 1421 <br /> Crl.A…of 2026 @ SLP(Crl)No.13899 of 2025 Page <b>9</b> of <b>18</b> <br /> <br /><br /> <i>statement as she was admitted in hospital on 15.10.2012 and died </i><br /> <i>on 19.10.2012. The Magistrate has taken her certification on </i><br /> <i>some blank paper and he had made the endorsement on blank </i><br /> <i>paper it is true that she could not sign on blank paper as she was </i><br /> <i>not educated</i> .” At the cost of brevity, the statement of the <br /> concerned officer namely Mr. Ajay Kumar Sharma, learned <br /> ACJM No.4-Kota at the relevant time, is reproduced as under : - <br /> <b>“Examination in Chief :- </b><br /> On 15-10-2012, I was posted as Additional Chief <br /> Judicial Magistrate No.4, Kota. On that day, Gopal <br /> Lal ASI of Police Station Daabi presented a written <br /> requisition Exhibit P-19 to the effect that a woman <br /> from our police station area is admitted in M.B.S. in <br /> a burnt condition and we want to record her dying <br /> declaration. The order passed by me on the <br /> application is from C to D and the signature is from <br /> E to F. After this, I recorded the dying declaration of <br /> Sugna Bai admitted in M.B.S. Hospital, Kota. <br /> Before recording the statement, I had taken a <br /> certificate from the duty doctor regarding the <br /> condition of giving the statement of Sugna Bai, the <br /> dying declaration is Exhibit P-20 on which the <br /> certificate of the doctor from E to F is mentioned and <br /> Sugna Bai was identified by Shri Gopal Lal, whose <br /> reference is mentioned from A to B. Sugna Bai’s <br /> dying declaration is recorded by me in the form of <br /> questions and answers. Exhibit P-20 has my <br /> signatures G to H. When the statement of Sugna Bai <br /> was recorded, she was in a position to give the <br /> statement and was conscious. After recording the <br /> said dying statement, the said statement and <br /> documents were sent by me to the concerned court <br /> through Exhibit P-22, on which my signatures A to <br /> B are there. <br /> Crl.A…of 2026 @ SLP(Crl)No.13899 of 2025 Page <b>10</b> of <b>18</b> <br /> <br /><br /> CROSS EXAMINATION BY THE ADVOCATES <br /> OF ACCUSED :- <br /> It is true that I had sent Exhibit P-22 to the concerned <br /> Court in my capacity as ACJM No.4 on which my <br /> seal is not marked. It is true that I did not put a note <br /> on the dying declaration Exhibit P-20 that injured <br /> was in a sound mind to give the statement, and today <br /> herself said that I had obtained a certificate in this <br /> regard from the duty doctor. It is true that there is no <br /> mention that the dying declaration is certified by the <br /> doctor. I first got the injured identified from Gopal <br /> Lal and then took the certificates from the doctor and <br /> after this the statements were recorded. On the day <br /> the application Exhibit P-19 was presented, I was <br /> working as the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kota. It is <br /> true that I have not written the word C.J.M. below <br /> my ordersheet. It is true that the name of the acting <br /> C.J.M. is not mentioned in in Exhibit P-19. That day <br /> I had remand duty and I was the one working. I am <br /> a resident of Jaipur. I could very well understand the <br /> language in which the injured gave her statement. I <br /> cannot say whether she was speaking Hadoti or <br /> Mewadi Language at that time, but I could been <br /> written in question-answer format as it is according <br /> to the law. It is wrong to say that since injured was <br /> not in a position to speak, I took injured’s statement <br /> in question-answer format because that is as per law. <br /> It is true that I have not mentioned the time in my <br /> dying statement as to what time the statement was <br /> taken. It is wrong to say that I took the help of Gopal <br /> Lal ASI to understand the language of religion. <br /> When I recorded Injured’s statement, only I and <br /> injured were present. No one else was present. I had <br /> sent injuried’s family out. I did not ask Majhruba’s <br /> mother whether Majhruba was in a position to give <br /> a statement or not. …..” <br /> A perusal of the above extracted statement makes <br /> abundantly clear that nowhere did the officer state to the effect <br /> that the deceased not of sound mind. It is also evident that the <br /> Crl.A…of 2026 @ SLP(Crl)No.13899 of 2025 Page <b>11</b> of <b>18</b> <br /> <br /><br /> duty doctor had given a certificate of her condition. PW-15 <br /> (Dr. Tez Pratap Singh) the duty doctor has testified that prior to <br /> giving the certificate on a blank paper he had examined the <br /> condition of the deceased. It stands to reason that, after the <br /> condition has been certified, only then, would the doctor record <br /> the statement on paper. The fact that it was on the flip side of the <br /> same paper does not affect the sanctity thereof. That being the <br /> case, we cannot appreciate the ground as raised by the appellant. <br /> <b>11. </b> Yet another point also needs to be addressed. Before the <br /> learned Trial Court the counsel for the accused attempted to argue <br /> that the parents of the deceased tutored her into giving the <br /> statement that she gave. However, we are of the considered view <br /> that such a submission, was correctly, not accepted by the Trial <br /> Court. It appears to us, to be nothing but a bald assertion. <br /> <b>12.</b> In this case, the eyewitnesses PW-2 (Brajmohan) and PW-<br /> 3 (Mamta Bai) have turned hostile and supported the prosecution <br /> case. In ordinary circumstances this would accrue to the favour <br /> of the accused. However, given the consistency of medical <br /> evidence with the dying declaration, the difference in events <br /> testified to by the above two witnesses would lose its <br /> significance. In respect of PW-3 and PW-8 (parents of the <br /> deceased), it be observed that apart from a vague implication of <br /> tutoring which has not made its way into either the examination-<br /> in-chief or cross examination, their statements cannot be <br /> Crl.A…of 2026 @ SLP(Crl)No.13899 of 2025 Page <b>12</b> of <b>18</b> <br /> <br /><br /> challenged or kept aside. As such their statements cannot be of <br /> any use to the appellant, in discrediting the case of the <br /> prosecution. That apart the medical evidence as given by PW-9 <br /> (Dr. Navneet Parashar) and PW-10 (Dr. Rakesh Sharma) are <br /> consistent with the statement of the deceased that she was burnt. <br /> One of the grounds raised is that the evidence of PW-10 cannot <br /> be relied upon by the Court for the reason that he was not a <br /> practicing doctor and was only a ‘ <i>medical jurist</i> ’. That in our <br /> view, cannot be a reason to disregard his testimony for it is not <br /> the case that he was unqualified to give such a testimony nor is <br /> it the case that he was underqualified. Additionally, his testimony <br /> is also in line with the testimony of PW-9, Medical Officer at <br /> MBS Hospital, who has also deposed that the deceased was burnt <br /> and the cause of death was <i>septicaemia</i> due to burning. <br /> <b>13.</b> Taking a cumulative view of the above discussion, the <br /> appeal must fail, and is accordingly dismissed. However, before <br /> parting with the matter we deem it necessary to pen down a <br /> postscript. <br /> <b>14.</b> The offence in question is of the year 2011. At that point <br /> in time, we were 64 years into being an independent country. The <br /> Constitution promises equality, non-discrimination on the basis <br /> of sex and the right to life and liberty amongst others. However, <br /> cases such as these, demonstrate that even after so many years, <br /> rights enshrined in the founding Charter are still elusive for many. <br /> Crl.A…of 2026 @ SLP(Crl)No.13899 of 2025 Page <b>13</b> of <b>18</b> <br /> <br /><br /> It could be argued and very well proved that a further fourteen <br /> years down the line, in spite of incremental progress the issues <br /> highlighted by the incidence such as in the present case, largely <br /> remain the same. Over the years numerous legislations were <br /> enacted, schemes brought into force, and judgments delivered, <br /> focussed on the upliftment of women and eradication of <br /> difficulties faced by them arising out of inherent social stigma <br /> and deep-rooted patriarchal and conservative practices. <br /> The process of unshackling the society from these deeply <br /> stigmatic understandings of women and their roles, began <br /> immediately after independence. Early legislative efforts such as <br /> the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 were aimed at dismantling one <br /> of the most deep-rooted practices of patriarchal control, i.e., <br /> dowry. This was followed by introduction of provisions like <br /> Section 498A, IPC addressing cruelty by husbands and relatives, <br /> and later the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, <br /> 4<br /> 2005 which recognized domestic abuse as a civil wrong <br /> requiring immediate relief and protection. When it comes to <br /> equality in workplace, the Sexual Harassment of Women at <br /> Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act, 2013 <br /> institutionalized safeguards following the <i>Vishaka </i> guidelines laid <br /> down by this Court. <br /> <br /> 4<br /> DVA <br /> Crl.A…of 2026 @ SLP(Crl)No.13899 of 2025 Page <b>14</b> of <b>18</b> <br /> <br /><br /> The interpretation of these rights and their expansion into <br /> varied aspects of women’s life has taken place through a series <br /> <b><i>5</i></b><br /> of judicial pronouncements. In <b><i>Shayara Bano v. Union of India</i></b> , <br /> the practice of instant <i>triple talaq</i> was declared unconstitutional, <br /> affirming women’s rights within personal law frameworks. In <br /> <b><i>6</i></b><br /> <b><i>Joseph Shine v. Union of India</i></b> , the Court struck down the <br /> adultery law, emphasizing equality and autonomy. In <b><i>Secretary, </i></b><br /> <b><i>7</i></b><br /> <b><i>Ministry of Defence v. Babita Puniya</i></b> , the Court upheld the <br /> right of women officers to be granted permanent commission in <br /> the Indian Army, rejecting institutional stereotypes about gender <br /> <b><i>8</i></b><br /> roles. In <b><i>Vineeta Sharma v. Rakesh Sharma</i></b> , daughters were <br /> recognized as equal coparceners in Hindu joint family property. <br /> The Court has also addressed the complexities of domestic <br /> <b><i>9</i></b><br /> violence, in <b><i>Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar</i></b> , while cautioning <br /> against misuse of Section 498A, it reaffirmed the seriousness of <br /> cruelty against married women, and in <b><i>Hiral P. Harsora v. </i></b><br /> <b><i>10</i></b><br /> <b><i>Kusum Narottamdas Harsora</i></b> , it expanded the scope of the <br /> DVA to include complaints against female relatives within the <br /> household. The Court has further intervened in matters of <br /> <b><i>11</i></b><br /> personal liberty and choice. In <b><i>Shakti Vahini v. Union of India</i></b> , <br /> <br /> 5<br /> (2017) 9 SCC 1 <br /> 6<br /> (2018) 2 SCC 189 <br /> 7 (2020) 7 SCC 469. <br /> 8 (2020) 9 SCC 1 <br /> 9 (2014) 8 SCC 273 <br /> 10 (2016) 10 SCC 165. <br /> 11 (2018) 7 SCC 192. <br /> Crl.A…of 2026 @ SLP(Crl)No.13899 of 2025 Page <b>15</b> of <b>18</b> <br /> <br /><br /> it issued detailed guidelines to prevent honour killings, <br /> recognizing that societal and familial control over women’s <br /> choices in marriage is a direct assault on their fundamental rights. <br /> <b><i>12</i></b><br /> Similarly, in <b><i>Shafin Jahan v. Asokan K.M</i></b> ., the Court upheld <br /> an adult woman’s right to choose her partner, affirming that <br /> neither the State nor the family can dictate personal decisions <br /> central to individual dignity and autonomy. <br /> <b>15.</b> Parallel to legal reform, the State has also invested in <br /> welfare and social transformation schemes. Programmes such as <br /> <b><i>Beti Bachao, Beti Padhao</i></b> , are aimed at correcting gender <br /> imbalances and improving girls’ education, while initiatives like <br /> <b><i>Sukanya Samriddhi Yojana</i></b> and <b><i>Ujjwala Yojana</i></b> aim to enhance <br /> financial security and improve living conditions for women. <br /> <b>16.</b> Yet, despite this sustained intervention from different <br /> branches of Government, empirical data shows that all is not <br /> well. It presents a sobering picture indeed. As per the National <br /> Crime Records Bureau, more than 4.48 lakh crimes against <br /> 13<br /> women were recorded in 2023 . Dowry-related violence <br /> continues to claim over 6,000 lives annually, revealing the <br /> persistence of practices that have long been outlawed. <br /> Complaints before the National Commission for Women also <br /> consistently show domestic violence as one of the most reported <br /> <br /> 12 (2018) 16 SCC 368. <br /> 13<br /> https://www.ncrb.gov.in/uploads/files/1CrimeinIndia2023PartI1.pdf <br /> Crl.A…of 2026 @ SLP(Crl)No.13899 of 2025 Page <b>16</b> of <b>18</b> <br /> <br /><br /> 14<br /> grievances . What makes this reality particularly troubling is the <br /> context in which it exists. India has experienced significant <br /> economic growth, rising literacy, and increased participation of <br /> women in education and the workforce. Gender Roles do not <br /> apply strictly anymore in many urban areas. One cannot assume <br /> that all house-hold related work falls to the woman, whereas it is <br /> only the male who is tasked with bread winning. Yet, in rural and <br /> semi-urban scenarios, patriarchy remains a facet of everyday life. <br /> Authority within the household is still overwhelmingly male, and <br /> women’s autonomy is often conditional and constrained. Even if <br /> the woman earns, it would still be expected of her that she would <br /> set the house right before leaving for work, and busily engage <br /> herself in similar work including preparation of meals, when she <br /> returns from work. <br /> <b>17.</b> The coexistence of progress and violence signals to a <br /> paradox. Legal and economic advancements are visible on a <br /> macro-level, but patriarchy still permeates the everyday. Dowry <br /> is outlawed and has been for decades but the social legitimacy <br /> that sustains it is yet to be dismantled. Welfare schemes can <br /> incentivize education, but cannot alter long-held beliefs about <br /> women’s roles within marriage and family. As a result, practices <br /> such as domestic abuse or even extreme acts like burning a wife <br /> <br /> 14<br /> https://ncwapps.nic.in/frmReportNatureState.aspx?Year=2023; <br /> https://ncwapps.nic.in/frmReportNatureState.aspx?Year=2024; <br /> https://ncwapps.nic.in/frmReportNatureState.aspx?Year=2025 <br /> Crl.A…of 2026 @ SLP(Crl)No.13899 of 2025 Page <b>17</b> of <b>18</b> <br /> <br /><br /> (such as in this case) persist not as aberrations, but as indications <br /> of a disease afflicted social order. <br /> <b>18.</b> After decades of laws, schemes, reforms, and judicial <br /> recognition of equality across workplaces, homes, personal <br /> relationships, and even the armed forces, why does the control <br /> over women’s bodies, choices, and lives still persist so deeply <br /> within society? Perhaps, the answer lies only with “ <i>We, the </i><br /> <i>People of India</i> ”. <br /> <br /> Pending applications, if any, shall stand disposed of. <br /> <br /> <br /> <b>…………………………….…………...…..J. </b><br /> <b>(SANJAY KAROL) </b><br /> <b> </b><br /> <b> </b><br /> <b> </b><br /> <b> </b><br /> <b>……………………………………………..J. </b><br /> <b>(NONGMEIKAPAM KOTISWAR SINGH) </b><br /> <b> </b><br /> <b>New Delhi </b><br /> <b>April 2, 2026</b><br /> <br /> Crl.A…of 2026 @ SLP(Crl)No.13899 of 2025 Page <b>18</b> of <b>18</b> <br /> </div>