2021 Supreme(SC) 436

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
HEMANT GUPTA, A.S. BOPANNA, JJ.
Parubai - Appellant
Versus
The State of Maharashtra - Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 1154 of 2018
Decided On : 10-08-2021

IMPORTANT POINTS
(1) Mere suspicion would not be sufficient unless circumstantial evidence tendered by prosecution leads to conclusion that it “must be true” and not “may be true”.
(2) Failure to explain can only be held as an additional link to complete chain of circumstance. Suspicion, however strong, cannot take place of proof.

Headnote:

(A) Criminal Law – Circumstantial evidence – Links in chain of circumstances is necessary to be established for conviction on the basis of circumstantial evidence – Mere suspicion would not be sufficient unless circumstantial evidence tendered by prosecution leads to conclusion that it “must be true” and not “may be true”. (Paras 13 and 14)

(B) Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Sections 302 and 436 – Indian Evidence Act, 1872 – Section 106 – Murder and mischief by fire – Conviction and sentence – Evidence tendered on behalf of prosecution has been discarded as not trustworthy but ultimately conclusion has been reached on assumption made only due to fact that appellant had not suffered injuries in fire accident – Circumstance that appellant was not injured in incident cannot be basis to rely on presence of kerosene stains on frock as a circumstance that she had set fire by sprinkling kerosene – Natural human conduct is that when there is any incident or accident immediate reaction is to get away from scene and save oneself – If in middle of night for whatever reason there was fire and if appellant had woken up and noticed it a little earlier, natural conduct is to run out of house instead of going into house which is burning to check on other inmates – It takes a person lot of courage or be overdriven with compassion to get back into house to save somebody else and not doing so may be considered as morally wrong for not coming to aid of fellow human being in distress, but it cannot be a circumstance to hold a person guilty of a crime which is as serious as murder unless other circumstances in chain point to accused so as to lead to an irresistible conclusion of being guilty – High Court holding appellant guilty of pouring kerosene around deceased and her children and setting them on fire since appellant had failed to explain reason for eruption of fire in view of such obligation to explain under Section 106 is also not sustainable in present circumstance – Failure to explain can only be held as an additional link to complete chain of circumstance – In instant case, since other circumstances in chain are not established, same cannot be held against appellant – Suspicion, however strong, cannot take place of proof – Appellant is entitled to be acquitted as benefit of doubt weighs in her favour – Judgment passed by High Court affirming conviction and sentence ordered by Sessions Court set aside. (Paras 10, 12, 15, 18, 19 and 20)

Facts of the case:

Appellant is before this Court in this appeal assailing the judgment dated 12.10.2017 passed by High Court of Judicature at Bombay, Bench at Aurangabad in Criminal Appeal No.488/2007. By said judgment the High Court has dismissed the appeal filed by the appellant herein and the judgment dated 16.11.2007 passed by Sessions Judge Parbhani in Sessions Case No.27/2007, convicting appellant in respect of the offence punishable under Sections 302 and 436 of the Indian Penal Code is confirmed. Appellant was charged of the offence as accused No.1 while her husband Gulab and his mother i.e., mother-in-law of the appellant were charged as accused Nos. 2 and 3. The accused Nos. 2 and 3 were acquitted by the Sessions Court. In that view, the appeal before the High Court and the present consideration is limited to the conviction of the appellant herein who is accused No.1.

Findings of Court:

Appellant was responsible for causing the fire with the intention to kill Mandabai, would not she have closed the door after coming out of the house to ensure that she does not come out. On the other hand, Mandabai who came out alive and lived for a day has not blamed or suspected anybody including the appellant. She would have stated about the overt act if any was indulged in by the appellant. Her declaration is clear that house caught fire and she and her children were caught in the fire. She did not state that the fire set on her had spread to the house.

Result : Appeal allowed.