Budhadev Karmaskar vs. State of West Bengal | Legal Reasoning for CLAT PDF Download

Introduction

The legal precedent set by the Budhadev Karmaskar vs. State of West Bengal case stands as a significant milestone in championing the rights of sex workers. This landmark decision shed light on the precarious conditions faced by sex workers and the societal stigma that accompanies their profession. The verdict firmly upholds the fundamental right of sex workers to live with dignity, as enshrined in Article 21 of the Indian Constitution.

Furthermore, this case prompted the Supreme Court to establish guidelines aimed at addressing the challenges faced by sex workers, thereby preventing potential incidents of a similar nature. Additionally, it played a crucial role in fostering public awareness, emphasizing that sex workers should not be dehumanized or stigmatized solely based on their chosen profession.

The ruling underscored the principle that sex workers, like all individuals, are human beings deserving of equal rights and privileges within society.

Facts of Budhadev Karmaskar vs. State of West Bengal

On the evening of 17 September 1999, at approximately 9:15 p.m., a horrific murder occurred involving Shrimati Chayay Rani Pal, also known as Buri, a 45-year-old sex worker. This tragic incident unfolded in the red-light district situated on Jogen Dutta Lane, leaving a profound impact on the collective consciousness of the general public.

Residing in a three-story building within the red-light area of Jogen Dutta Lane in Kolkata, the victim, prior to the incident, was peacefully sleeping near the staircase on the building's second floor. The perpetrator approached the second floor and accidentally stumbled upon the victim, leading to a loud altercation.

The accused Budhadev Karmaskar kicked the deceased with fists and legs and assaulted her which 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, and ear. An alarm was raised by one of the eye-witnesses Asha Khatun, a maidservant who was present on 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 as 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 in Budhadev Karmaskar vs. State of West Bengal

• 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 the 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 in Budhadev Karmaskar vs. State of West Bengal

• 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 was a total of eleven injuries in various parts of the face and forehead that resulted in her death.
• The prosecution contended that eight out of eleven injuries were sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature.

Order of the court in Budhadev Karmaskar vs. State of West Bengal

• 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 eyewitness 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 which 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 with 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 significant legal decision serves as a striking illustration of the mistreatment and violence suffered by sex workers, perpetrated by individuals who view them as mere commodities. It sends a powerful social message that society should not tolerate such inhumane acts in a civilized and compassionate community.

The case underscores the harsh realities faced by sex workers, emphasizing that their engagement in this profession often stems from economic necessity rather than personal choice. Despite the societal stigma attached to their work, it is crucial to recognize that they, too, have the right to live with dignity.

Article 21 of the Indian Constitution guarantees every individual the fundamental right to life and personal liberty, which extends beyond mere survival. However, societal stereotypes create significant challenges in realizing this right.

The persistent societal bias makes it nearly impossible for sex workers to access the protections afforded by Article 21. Recognizing the urgency to address this issue, the Supreme Court, through suo moto cognizance of the matter, took proactive steps to frame guidelines. These guidelines aim to safeguard the rights of sex workers and mitigate the exploitation they face at the hands of those who marginalize and mistreat them.

The acknowledgment of prostitution as a legitimate profession in the eyes of the law is essential for combating such exploitation and preventing heinous crimes against sex workers.

This judgment did not just shake the conscience of the general public but also inspired and brought social change.