In a pronounced rebuke, the Supreme Court on Wednesday criticized the Patna High Court for its insensitive remarks regarding a widow and her use of makeup in a murder case judgment from 1985. The top court termed these comments as “highly objectionable,” stating that such observations do not align with the expected sensitivity and neutrality of a judicial institution.
The controversy stems from an appeal against the Patna High Court’s decision, which upheld the conviction of five individuals involved in a 1985 murder case aimed at usurping a property. The case revolved around a woman who was abducted and murdered, with the crime allegedly motivated by a desire to seize her father’s house.
During the proceedings, the Patna High Court had revisited the victim’s residency claims at the disputed property. Notably, the court pointed to the presence of makeup articles as an indicator of her residence there, despite acknowledging that another widow also lived in the same house. The High Court conjectured that the makeup could not have belonged to the widow, suggesting that widows have no need for such items—a comment that the Supreme Court found legally and morally untenable.
Justices Bela M Trivedi and Satish Chandra Sharma of the Supreme Court critiqued the High Court for basing legal conclusions on such reasoning without sufficient evidence. They emphasized that mere possession of makeup articles is not definitive proof of residence and chastised the High Court for its baseless association of these items with the deceased.
The apex court concluded that there was inadequate direct evidence to sustain the murder charges against the accused. It also highlighted that while motive is an important aspect of criminal proceedings, it cannot substitute for concrete evidence of the accused’s involvement in the crime.
Ultimately, the Supreme Court acquitted all seven accused, ordering their immediate release if they were still in custody, thereby overturning the lower court’s earlier verdict. This decision underscores the Supreme Court’s commitment to ensuring justice is served with the requisite legal rigor and empathy, especially in sensitive matters involving character assumptions based on outdated stereotypes.
