Abstract

The present case pertains to Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860[1] wherein a sex worker was sexually assaulted and brutally murdered and impeccable evidences were found against the accused. The crucial point that arose before the court was whether the prosecution was able to bring home the charges that were framed against the accused. The only eyewitness in the case was present in the examination-in-chief but failed to appear for the cross-examination. The learned advocate appearing for the appellant submitted that the statement made by the witness cannot be taken into consideration as per Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973[2] if the witness is absent for the cross-examination. The issue before the court was to determine how much weight must be attached to the evidence for it to be admissible. This case addresses the plight of the sex workers and provides for protective measures to safeguard their rights and interests. This case gives its decision in the favour of the vulnerable sex workers and re-thinks their position in the society. This case sheds light on the acceptance of the profession of prostitution i.e., the sex workers should not be looked down upon in the society. Through this case commentary, a sincere attempt has been made to critically analyse this remarkable judgment in order to find new insights into the lives of the most marginalized class of people in the society—the sex workers.

Keywords: Sexual Assault, Murder, Witness, Evidence, Sex Workers, Prostitution, Rights, Cross-examination.

Case Details

  • Case Title: BUDHADEV KARMASKAR V. STATE OF WEST BENGAL[3]
  • Case No.: CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 487 OF 2004
  • Date Of The Order: JULY 25, 2007
  • Jurisdiction: The High Court of Calcutta
  • Quorum: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Girish Chandra Gupta & Hon’ble Mr. Justice Kishore Kumar Prasad.
  •  Author Of The Judgment: Both Hon’ble Justices
  • Appellant: Budhadev Karmaskar
  • Respondent: The State of West Bengal
  • Counsel For Appellant: Mrs. P. Goswami
  • Counsel For Respondent: Mr. Pradip Ghosh
  • Acts And Sections Involved: Indian Penal Code, 1860 (Section 302) & Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Section 164) 

INTRODUCTION

Budhadev Karmaskar v. State of West Bengal is a landmark judgment that paved the way for securing the rights of the sex workers. This case brought into light the vulnerable state of the sex workers and the social stigma attached to them. This ruling upholds the right of the sex workers to live with dignity as prescribed under Article 21 of the Indian Constitution. This case also prompted the Supreme Court to frame guidelines to address the plight of the sex workers to avert the possibility of any mishap of the like nature. Moreover, it sensitized the general public that the sex workers are not mere commodity and they must not be looked down upon just because of their profession. The sex workers are also human beings and they are entitled to the same rights and privileges like the other members of the society.

FACTS OF THE CASE

On the fateful night of 17 September 1999 at around 9.15 p.m., a gruesome murder of a sex worker, Shrimati Chayay Rani Pal alias Buri, aged 45 years took place in the red light area situated in the Jogen Dutta Lane that shook the conscience of the general public. She was a resident of a three-storied building situated in the red-light area of the Jogen Dutta Lane in Kolkata. Prior to the incident, the deceased was sleeping in front of her room near the staircase in the second floor of the building. The accused came up to the second floor tripped upon the deceased following which a noisy altercation took place. The accused Budhadev Karmaskar kicked the deceased with fists and legs and assaulted her that left her bleeding profusely. She fell down on the floor after which the accused dragged her by her hair and pushed her head against the wall. As a result, she started bleeding from her head, nose, ear. An alarm was raised by one of the eye-witnesses Asha Khatun, a maidservant who was present in the second floor when the incident took place. The other inmates gathered at the crime spot and witnessed the deceased being mercilessly beaten by the accused. As soon a protest was raised, the accused hastily left the victim on the spot, pushed and jostled the onlookers and fled the area. At around 2.15 a.m., the accused was arrested by the police in the Jogen Dutta Lane itself within 5 hours of the incident. The victim was shifted to the hospital where she was declared dead.

ARGUMENTS MADE BY THE APPELLANT

  • The learned advocate appearing for the appellant vehemently denied all the charges framed by the prosecution.
  • The learned advocate submitted that the statement made by the eye-witness, Asha Khatun during examination-in-chief cannot be admissible under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 as she did not turn up during the cross-examination. To substantiate the same, the learned advocate relied upon the case of Raghuvir Singh v. State of Uttaranchal.
  • It was also submitted that none of the residents of the area where the crime took place were summoned as witnesses. Owing to this reason, the learned advocate wanted to cast a shadow of doubt on the prosecution story.

ARGUMENTS MADE BY THE RESPONDENT

  • The prosecution case suggested that the relationship between the deceased and the accused were sour and they quarrelled at intervals.
  • The prosecution case produced the injury report made by a competent physician that stated that the deceased was beaten by the accused through fists and legs. The report also found that there were a total of eleven injuries in various parts of the face and forehead that resulted in her death.
  • The prosecution contented that the eight out of eleven injuries were sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature.

ORDER OF THE COURT

In the present case, the appeal was dismissed by the Hon’ble High Court of Calcutta.

  • The court denied the submission made by the appellant that the statement of the eye-witness, Asha Khatun should not be brought into service for her absence in the cross-examination under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. The court attached reasonable weight to the statement made by the eye-witness of the case, as it gave a vivid description of the act of the accused.
  • It was also proved through the statement of the eye-witness, Asha Khatun that there was enmity between the accused and the deceased and they often used to quarrel.
  • It was also proved that the accused tripped upon the deceased who was sleeping near the staircase that led to the altercation.
  • The court was of the view that the grave injuries that were inflicted by the accused were further corroborated with the help of the post-mortem report prepared by the attending physician. It was proved that the injuries inflicted by the accused were grave enough to cause the death of the deceased in the ordinary course of nature.
  • The court also expressed its dissatisfaction towards the fact there was no explanation as to why there was an injury near the left eye of the accused when the defence case was pure denial.

CONCLUSION

This landmark judgment is a startling example of how sex workers are mistreated and murdered at the hands of demonic people who treat them as a mere commodity. It conveys the social message that one should not be tolerant towards such inhumane acts in a civilized society. This case highlights the miserable condition of the sex workers, that the work they do, is not because they enjoy doing it, but poverty drives them to do so. Since their profession is attached with a social stigma, it doesn’t mean that they do not have the right to live with dignity. Under Article 21 of Indian Constitution, every individual has the fundamental right to life and personal liberty. It does not mean mere animal existence. But due to the stereotypical mindset of the society, it becomes close to impossible. Unless and until, prostitution will not be recognized as a profession in the eyes of law, the sex workers will continue to be exploited at the hands of people who look down upon them. To facilitate the prevention of such heinous crimes, the Supreme Court took a suo moto cognizance of this case and framed guidelines for safeguarding the rights of the sex workers. This judgment did not just shake the conscience of the general public but also inspired and brought a social change.

RELATED CASE LAWS

  • Raghuvir Singh versus State of Uttaranchal, reported in 2007 (2) Crimes 102 (Uttaranchal).
  • W. Steward versus Newzeland Insurance Company Limited, reported in 16 CWN 991.
  • Horil Kuer versus Rajib Ali, reported in AIR 1936 Patna 34.

[1] Section 302, Indian Penal Code, 1860

[2] Section 164, Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973

[3] Budhadev Karmaskar v. State of W.B., 2022 SCC Online SC 704


About the Author: This Case Brief is prepared by Ms. Tulip Sharma & Ms. Diya Nema, law students at Amity University, Chattisgarh. They can be reached at tulipsharma1812@gmail.com & diyanema46@gmail.com 

MyLawman is now on Telegram (t.me/mylawman) Follow us for regular legal updates. Follow us on Google News, Instagram, LinkedIn, Facebook & Twitter or join our whats app group .You can also subscribe for our Newsletter for Email Updates. 

 For More Case Briefs, Click Here