In a significant ruling, the Supreme Court of India has overturned the conviction of Shail Kumari, a woman previously sentenced to life imprisonment for the murder of her two young children. The Court found that the prosecution's case, which rested entirely on circumstantial evidence, failed to establish a complete and unbroken chain of events leading to her guilt.
The case centered on the deaths of the appellant's two children, a 2-year-old son and a 4-month-old daughter, who were found floating in Pujari Talab, a water body in Durg, Chhattisgarh, on October 11, 2003. The trial court and the Chhattisgarh High Court had both convicted Shail Kumari, relying primarily on the testimony of a single witness (PW-2), Santosh Kumar Pandey.
The Prosecution's Case and Key Witness:
The prosecution alleged that Santosh Kumar Pandey, a local kiosk owner, saw the appellant walking "abnormally" toward the water body with her two children. He grew suspicious and asked a nearby rickshaw puller to follow her. The rickshaw puller later returned, stating that the children were floating in the water. Shortly after, PW-2 claimed to have seen the appellant attempting to lie down on nearby railway tracks. He intervened, pulling her to safety, and when he questioned her, she allegedly confessed to the crime, stating she had been fighting with her husband.
The post-mortem reports confirmed that the cause of death for both children was asphyxia due to drowning.
The Supreme Court's Analysis of Circumstantial Evidence:
The Supreme Court, in its detailed judgment, emphasized that convictions based on circumstantial evidence must meet a very high standard. Citing its own precedent in Sharad Birdhichand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra, the Court reiterated the "five golden principles" for a conviction in such cases:
- The circumstances of guilt must be fully established.
- The established facts must be consistent only with the hypothesis of the accused's guilt and not explainable on any other basis.
- The circumstances must be of a conclusive nature.
- They must exclude every possible hypothesis except the one to be proved.
- There must be a complete chain of evidence that leaves no reasonable ground for a conclusion consistent with the innocence of the accused.
The Court noted that the prosecution's case hinged entirely on the testimony of PW-2, as no other witnesses provided a link connecting the appellant to the crime.
Discrepancies and Unreliable Testimony:
The Court meticulously examined PW-2's testimony and found significant contradictions. During cross-examination, it was revealed that his statement in the examination-in-chief was a significant "improvement" on his initial statement to the police under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The Court concluded that much of what he narrated in court was not present in his police statement, making his evidence "totally contradictory and therefore totally unworthy."
The Court also highlighted that the prosecution failed to examine the crucial rickshaw puller who was said to have seen the appellant and later the children in the water. This omission further weakened the prosecution's case.
The Court categorized PW-2's evidence as unreliable, falling into the third category defined in Vadivelu Thevar v. State of Madras, which requires corroboration. Since there was no corroborating evidence to support his claims, his testimony was deemed insufficient to secure a conviction.
A False Plea Is Not a Substitute for Evidence:
The judgment also referenced a key legal principle: a false plea or defense by the accused cannot be used to fill the gaps in the prosecution's case. The prosecution must prove its case "on its own legs." While the appellant's statement about her marital tension and her husband's second marriage provided some context, it did not constitute a confession or a substitute for concrete evidence connecting her to the act of murder.
In its concluding remarks, the Supreme Court held that the convictions by the trial court and the High Court were based on "conjectures and surmises" rather than conclusive evidence. With no reliable evidence linking Shail Kumari to the deaths of her children, the Court found her conviction to be unsustainable.
The appeal was allowed, and the judgments of the lower courts were quashed and set aside. Shail Kumari was acquitted of all charges and ordered to be released immediately.
Section 302., Indian Penal Code - 1860
Indian Penal Code, 1860
Section 161., Code of Criminal Procedure - 1973
Section 313., Code of Criminal Procedure - 1973
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973
Section 134, Indian Evidence Act - 1872
Indian Evidence Act, 1872
