A conviction based solely on circumstantial evidence requires a complete chain of events that excludes all reasonable hypotheses of innocence.

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 Signature Not Verified Digitally signed by POOJA SHARMA Date: 2025.08.06 Reason: 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