Supreme Court slams Patna High Court for ‘no need for widow to use make-up’ remark

New Delhi: The Supreme Court on Wednesday termed a high court's observation regarding make-up articles and a widow as "highly objectionable." The apex court stated that such remarks were not in line with the sensitivity and neutrality expected from a court of law.

Background of the case

The Supreme Court was addressing appeals related to a 1985 murder case, where a woman was allegedly abducted and killed to gain possession of her father's house. The Patna High Court had upheld the conviction of five individuals while overturning the acquittal of two others, sentencing them to life imprisonment. These two had previously been acquitted by a trial court.

Details of the high court's reasoning

A bench comprising Justices Bela M Trivedi and Satish Chandra Sharma reviewed the high court's examination of whether the victim had been living in the house from where she was reportedly abducted. Based on testimonies from the victim's maternal uncle, brother-in-law, and the investigating officer (IO), the high court concluded that she had indeed been residing in the house.

The Supreme Court bench noted that the IO had found no direct material evidence indicating the victim's presence, apart from some make-up articles found in the house.

Supreme Court's objection to the high court's statement

One significant point of contention was the high court's reasoning regarding a widow who had also been residing in the same part of the house. The high court had suggested that the make-up articles could not belong to the widow, as "there was no need for her to use make-up, being a widow."

"In our opinion, the observation of the high court is not only legally untenable but also highly objectionable," the bench stated. It emphasised that such sweeping remarks lacked sensitivity and neutrality, particularly when there was no evidence to support them.

No conclusive proof of victim's residence

The Supreme Court underscored that the presence of make-up articles alone could not serve as conclusive proof of the victim's residence in the house, especially since another woman was also living there. The bench noted that no personal belongings of the deceased, such as clothes or footwear, were found in the house.

Acquittal of all accused

The victim died in August 1985 in Munger district, and an FIR was filed by her brother-in-law alleging her abduction by seven individuals. The trial court convicted five of the accused for offences including murder, while acquitting two others.

In its verdict, the Supreme Court pointed out that there was no direct evidence proving that the accused had committed murder. "Motive alone cannot ensure conviction without sufficient evidence proving the essential facts of the case," the bench explained.

As a result, the Supreme Court acquitted all seven accused and ordered their immediate release if they were still in custody. PTI