Back
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
B.R. GAVAI, CJI, K. VINOD CHANDRAN, J.
Shail Kumari – Appellant
Versus
State of Chhattisgarh – Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 2189 of 2017
Decided On : 06-08-2025
(A) Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Section 302 – Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 – Section 482 – Indian Evidence Act, 1872 – Section 25 – Murder – Life sentence – Circumstantial evidence – Conviction could be sustainable only if prosecution is in a position to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt and also establish chain of events which is so connected to each other that it leads to no other conclusion than guilt of accused – Apart from testimony of informant, there is nothing to connect appellant with crime in question – Prosecution has not even examined Rickshaw Puller who was stated to have seen appellant going towards the spot and children floating in lake – Testimony of informant being unreliable, at the most, can be treated as hearsay evidence – Conviction, as recorded by Trial Court and affirmed by High Court is totally based on conjectures and surmises – Conviction of appellant is not sustainable in law at all – Impugned judgment and order passed by High Court quashed and set aside and Appellant acquitted of all charges. (Paras 7, 13, 14 and 15)
(B) Criminal Law – Appreciation of evidence – Witnesses can be classified into three types: (i) wholly reliable, (ii) wholly unreliable, and (iii) neither wholly reliable nor wholly unreliable – In first category of cases, there is no difficulty inasmuch as if testimony of such witness is found to be fully reliable, it may convict or may acquit on the basis of his statement – Even in second category cases, there is no difficulty that if evidence of such a witness is found to be wholly unreliable, testimony must be discarded – Difficulty arises only in case of third type of witnesses, where Court is required to separate chaff from grain to arrive at a conclusion. (Para 12)
Facts of the case:
Vide impugned Judgment and order, High Court upheld judgment and order dated 18th June 2004 Criminal Appeal No. 2189 of 2017 rendered by Trial Court in Sessions Trial No. 286 of 2003 convicting appellant for offence punishable under Section 302 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 and sentencing her to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life.
Findings of Court:
Appellant is acquitted of all charges levelled against her and is directed to be released forthwith, if her detention is not required in any other case.
Result : Appeal allowed.
JUDGMENT :
B.R. GAVAI, CJI.
FACTUAL ASPECT
1. The present appeal challenges the judgment and order dated 8th September 2010, passed by a Division Bench of the High Court of Chhattisgarh at Bilaspur (hereinafter referred to as “the High Court”) in Criminal Appeal No. 713 of 2004, wherein the Division Bench dismissed the appeal filed by the appellant herein - Shail Kumari. By the said judgment and order, the High Court upheld the judgment and order dated 18th June 2004 rendered by the 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Durg (hereinafter referred to as "the Trial Court") in Sessions Trial No. 286 of 2003 convicting the appellant for the offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter referred to as "IPC") and sentencing her to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life.
2. Shorn of details, the facts leading to the present appeal are as under:
2.1 The case of the prosecution is that on 11th October 2003, one Santosh Kumar Pandey (PW-2), who was an owner of Beetel Kiosk shop, saw the appellant with her two children (son aged - 2 years and daughter aged - 4 months) going towards Pujari Talab (a water body situated near the Beetel Kiosk shop of PW-2). He observed that the appellant was taking the kids in a disordered condition and grew suspicious. He asked a nearby Rickshaw Puller to go and see where the appellant was going. After five to seven minutes, the Rickshaw Puller came back and stated that two children were floating in the water body. Thereafter, PW-2 saw the appellant going towards the railway tracks. PW-2 then sat on a motorbike driven by someone else coming from the other side of the water body and he asked the rider to turn around and go towards the train tracks. PW-2 then saw a train coming towards the appellant but somehow, he managed to drag her away from the train tracks.
2.2 On being asked by PW-2 the reason for killing her children, the appellant replied that she had been fighting with her husband. PW-2 informed the Police about the incident and the Dehati merg intimation was lodged which was signed by PW-2. Then the First Information Report was lodged.
2.3 The dead bodies of the victims were sent for post- mortem. The post-mortem was conducted by Dr. P. Akhtar (PW-6) and the cause of death for both of the victims was found to be asphyxia due to drowning.
2.4 The statements of the witnesses were recorded under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as "Cr.P.C."). After completion of the investigation, Charge Sheet was filed against the appellant before the Court of Judicial Magistrate First Class, Durg, who then, committed the case to the trial court.
2.5 Nine witnesses were examined during the trial and the appellant was examined under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C. The appellant, in her statement, denied the circumstances appearing against her. She further stated that she had been in a state of tension, because her husband - Kanhaiya Lal Kharre had performed a second marriage. She lastly stated that she was innocent and that she had been falsely implicated in the case.
2.6 At the conclusion of the trial, the Trial Court vide its judgment and order dated 18th June 2004 convicted the present appellant for the offence punishable under Section 302 of the IPC. On the same day, in a separate hearing, the Trial Court sentenced the appellant to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life.
2.7 Being aggrieved thereby, the present appellant preferred a criminal appeal before the High Court challenging the judgment and order of conviction and sentence awarded by the Trial Court. The High Court vide the impugned judgment and order dismissed the appeal and affirmed the conviction and sentence awarded by the Trial Court.
2.8 Being aggrieved thereby, a Special Leave Petition was filed before this Court on 21st July 2017. This Court, vide Order dated 15th December 2017 condoned the delay and granted leave in the matter. The appellant was also directed to be released on interim bail on
Murder – Conviction could be sustainable only if prosecution is in a position to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt.
The legal principle established is that the entire deposition of an eyewitness should not be discarded if some portion is found to be false, and the legal requirements for establishing guilt based on....
(1) If accused are already shown to witnesses in Police Station, then sanctity of TIP before court is doubtful.(2) However strong suspicion may be, it cannot take place of proof beyond reasonable dou....
Conviction based solely on circumstantial evidence requires a complete and coherent chain of events that excludes all reasonable hypotheses of innocence.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that suspicion, however strong, cannot take the place of proof. The court emphasized the need for reliable and conclusive evidence to establish gui....
The judgment emphasizes the requirement for complete and conclusive circumstantial evidence to establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt in criminal cases.
Circumstantial evidence must establish a complete chain of incriminating facts to support a conviction for serious offenses, with the absence of alternative hypotheses for the defendant's innocence.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
