Control Over Women’s Bodies, Choices, & Lives Still Persists Deeply Within Society: Supreme Court Upholds Husband’s Conviction
The Bench categorically remarked that the persistence of such control over women's lives is a challenge that can perhaps only be answered by "We, the People of India".
Justice Sanjay Karol, Justice N. Kotiswar Singh, Supreme Court
The Supreme Court, in a poignant judgment has observed that while the nation has reached 78 years of independence, the rights enshrined in the Constitution of India often remain elusive for women. The Court highlighted that even as India experiences significant economic growth and rising literacy, a "disease afflicted social order" persists where extreme acts of violence, such as the burning of a wife, are not merely aberrations but symptoms of deep-rooted patriarchal control.
While upholding life imprisonment of an appellant-husband for setting his wife on fire, ultimately resulting in death, the Bench relied primarily on the deceased's dying declaration, which it found to be consistent, believable, and corroborated by medical evidence. The judgment concluded with a profound rhetorical question, suggesting that the persistence of such control over women's lives is a challenge that can perhaps only be answered by "We, the People of India".
Justice Sanjay Karol and Justice Nongmeikapam Kotiswar Singh observed, “After decades of laws, schemes, reforms, and judicial recognition of equality across workplaces, homes, personal relationships, and even the armed forces, why does the control over women’s bodies, choices, and lives still persist so deeply within society? Perhaps, the answer lies only with We, the People of India’”.
Senior Advocate Kavita Vadia appeared for the appellant and Advocate Divynk Panwar appeared for the respondent.
The appellant, Shankar, married the deceased, approximately one month prior to her death in October 2012. Within 20 days, the relationship soured due to the appellant's alleged excessive alcohol consumption and violent streak.
On October 15, 2012, while the deceased was preparing food at the appellant's demand, he physically assaulted her, locked the room from the inside, poured kerosene, and set her on fire. Sugna Bai succumbed to septicaemia caused by the burns on October 19, 2012.
The Trial Court (Sessions Judge, Bundi) convicted the appellant on December 10, 2014, sentencing him to life imprisonment under Section 302 IPC and one year of rigorous imprisonment under Section 342 IPC.
The Rajasthan High Court dismissed the appellant’s appeal on August 20, 2019, confirming the conviction and sentence. The appellant then approached the Supreme Court challenging these concurrent findings.
Now the Court rejected the appellant's challenge to the Magistrate’s recording process, noting that a duty doctor had certified the victim's fitness to make a statement. The Bench clarified that the hostility of certain eyewitnesses did not weaken the prosecution's case because the medical testimony from the treating physicians was entirely in line with the victim's account of being burnt by her husband.
The Court categorically remarked that even in the scenarios where women participate in the workforce, persistent expectation that they must "set the house right" and manage all domestic labor, reflecting a society where authority remains overwhelmingly male.
“…Gender Roles do not apply strictly anymore in many urban areas. One cannot assume that all house-hold related work falls to the woman, whereas it is only the male who is tasked with bread winning. Yet, in rural and semi-urban scenarios, patriarchy remains a facet of everyday life. Authority within the household is still overwhelmingly male, and women’s autonomy is often conditional and constrained. Even if the woman earns, it would still be expected of her that she would set the house right before leaving for work, and busily engage herself in similar work including preparation of meals, when she returns from work”, it noted.
“The coexistence of progress and violence signals to a paradox. Legal and economic advancements are visible on a macro-level, but patriarchy still permeates the everyday. Dowry is outlawed and has been for decades but the social legitimacy that sustains it is yet to be dismantled. Welfare schemes can incentivize education, but cannot alter long-held beliefs about women’s roles within marriage and family. As a result, practices such as domestic abuse or even extreme acts like burning a wife (such as in this case) persist not as aberrations, but as indications of a disease afflicted social order”, it further noted.
The Court dismissed the appeal, upholding the concurrent conviction and sentence of life imprisonment. All pending applications were disposed of accordingly.
Cause Title: Shankar v. State of Rajasthan [Neutral Citation: 2026 INSC 315]
Appellant: Kavita Vadia, Sr. Adv., Tabrez Ahmad, Syed Mehdi Imam, AOR, Syeda Aaliya Fatima, Advocates.
Respondent: Divynk Panwar, Nidhi Jaswal, AOR, Advocate.
Click here to read/download the Judgment