Case Citation
Court: Supreme Court of India
Case Title: Rajeev Kumar Upadhyay v. Srikant Upadhyay & Ors.
Case No.: Criminal Appeal (Arising out of SLP (Crl.) No. 10447/2024)
Date of Judgment: December 19, 2024
Judges: Hon’ble Justice Sanjay Karol and Hon’ble Justice C.T. Ravikumar
Facts of the Case
The case revolves around a complaint lodged by Rajeev Kumar Upadhyay on March 4, 2020, under FIR No. 79/2020. The allegations were against 13 persons, including Srikant Upadhyay and others, under Sections 341, 323, 354, 354B, 379, 504, 506, and 149 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and Sections 3 and 4 of the Witch (Daain) Act. The complaint accused the respondents of publicly humiliating and physically assaulting the complainant’s grandmother, alleging she practiced witchcraft. The complaint described shocking acts, such as forcing the grandmother to consume stool and disrobing her in public. Despite the gravity of the allegations, only one person, Lakhpati Devi, was chargesheeted, and the remaining 12 accused were let off. The complainant challenged this decision before the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate (ACJM), who took cognizance of the case against all 13 accused on February 21, 2021. The accused subsequently filed a Criminal Miscellaneous Petition No. 30562 of 2023 under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC), before the Patna High Court, seeking quashing of the cognizance order. The High Court stayed the proceedings in favor of the accused. Aggrieved by this, the complainant approached the Supreme Court.
Contentions of the Appellant
The appellant, Rajeev Kumar Upadhyay, argued that the allegations in the FIR were of a serious nature, involving the public humiliation, assault, and disrobing of women. The appellant contended that the Patna High Court, by granting a stay on proceedings, had allowed the accused to escape trial despite sufficient material on record to establish a prima facie case against them. The appellant further argued that the order of the High Court lacked any sound reasoning and was a gross misuse of judicial discretion. It was contended that this undermined the complainant’s rights and the dignity of the victims, and it sent a wrong message to society regarding accountability for crimes of this nature.
Contentions of the Respondent
The respondents contended that there was no material evidence against them and that the Patna High Court had rightfully stayed the proceedings. They argued that the charges against them were baseless and that only one accused, Lakhpati Devi, had been sent for trial based on the police investigation. They further argued that since the police had not found any incriminating material against the other 12 accused, they should not be subjected to trial.
Issues in the Judgment
- Whether the High Court was justified in staying the proceedings against the accused.
- Whether the evidence and allegations on record were sufficient to proceed with the trial against all 13 accused.
- Whether the stay on proceedings violated the rights and dignity of the victims, especially in light of the constitutional guarantees under Article 21 of the Constitution of India.
- Whether the trial should proceed against all the accused named in the FIR.
Observations/Findings of the Supreme Court
The Supreme Court noted that the allegations in the FIR were grave and involved acts of physical assault, disrobing, and accusations of witchcraft against the victims. The Court observed that crimes of this nature, particularly involving accusations of witchcraft, had historically targeted vulnerable women, especially in rural areas. The Court remarked that allegations of witchcraft are deeply rooted in patriarchy and superstition, often leading to violence and humiliation of women, which must be eradicated.
The Supreme Court found the High Court’s stay order to be erroneous, arbitrary, and contrary to the principles of justice. It was noted that the High Court failed to provide any reasoning for its decision to stay the proceedings. The Court emphasized that it is the duty of the investigating and adjudicatory authorities to demonstrate heightened sensitivity in cases involving violence against women and that undue delay or mechanical grant of stays hampers the cause of justice. The Court highlighted the necessity of sensitivity to social realities, gender equity, and timely justice in such cases.
The Supreme Court took note of its earlier judgments on dignity as a constitutional value, referencing cases such as K.S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India (2017) 10 SCC 1 and Francis Coralie Mullin v. Administrator, Union Territory of Delhi (1981) 1 SCC 608. It emphasized that dignity is an integral part of Article 21 and that the right to dignity extends to women and marginalized sections of society. The Court also drew attention to India’s obligations under international instruments like the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women (CEDAW) and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR).
The Supreme Court stressed that cases involving witchcraft allegations reflect deep-seated societal prejudices and superstition, often fueled by patriarchal mindsets. It emphasized the role of the state in protecting women’s dignity and highlighted the duty of citizens to renounce practices derogatory to women’s dignity under Article 51A(e) of the Constitution.
Principles Laid Down by the Court
- Right to Dignity: The Supreme Court reiterated that the right to dignity is a fundamental right under Article 21 of the Constitution, and it must be zealously protected, especially in cases of violence against women.
- Sensitivity of Judicial Authorities: The Court emphasized that investigating authorities and the judiciary must act with heightened sensitivity in cases involving gender-based violence, particularly when it involves vulnerable groups such as women accused of witchcraft.
- Prohibition of Witchcraft Allegations: The Court condemned allegations of witchcraft as being rooted in superstition, patriarchy, and ignorance. It highlighted the importance of eradicating such practices and ensuring the prosecution of those who perpetrate violence in the name of witchcraft.
- Judicial Accountability in Granting Stay Orders: The Supreme Court held that granting a stay on proceedings must be backed by sound reasoning and should not be done mechanically. Courts should consider the impact on victims and the larger societal implications before staying criminal proceedings.
- Duty to Respect Fundamental Duties: The Court emphasized the constitutional duty of citizens under Article 51A(e) to renounce practices that are derogatory to the dignity of women.
Final Order
The Supreme Court set aside the stay order of the Patna High Court and directed the District Court to proceed with the trial. It ordered that the trial be conducted on a day-to-day basis and directed the accused to appear before the Trial Court on January 15, 2025. The Court emphasized that while the trial must proceed, it should not be influenced by the observations made in the judgment.
Importance of the Judgment to Society
This judgment highlights the Supreme Court’s commitment to protecting the dignity of women and combating gender-based violence. It reinforces the principle that crimes like disrobing, public humiliation, and witchcraft accusations must be dealt with expeditiously and sensitively. The judgment calls for stricter judicial scrutiny of stay orders, ensuring that victims’ rights are not undermined by arbitrary judicial actions. It also reinforces the constitutional mandate to eliminate practices derogatory to women, as enshrined in Article 51A(e) of the Constitution. The judgment serves as a reminder of the importance of dignity as a constitutional value and promotes a progressive view toward eradicating superstitions like witchcraft.
