Supreme Court Acquits Mother Where Conviction Rested on Unreliable Sole Witness and Incomplete Circumstantial Chain

A bench of Chief Justice B.R. Gavai and Justice K. Vinod Chandran heard an appeal against conviction under Section 302 IPC arising from the deaths by drowning of two infants; the appeal challenged concurrent findings of guilt by the trial court and the High Court which had relied predominantly on the testimony of a single eyewitness.

The Court allowed the appeal, quashed the judgments of the trial court and the High Court, and acquitted the appellant, concluding that the prosecution failed to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt through a complete chain of circumstantial evidence. The Court emphasised established principles governing conviction on circumstantial evidence and the quality of single-witness testimony, and noted that the conviction was “totally based on conjectures and surmises.” The Court, in its reasoning, observed: “153. A close analysis of this decision would show that the following conditions must be fulfilled before a case against an accused can be said to be fully established: (1) the circumstances from which the conclusion of guilt is to be drawn should be fully established. (2) the facts so established should be consistent only with the hypothesis of the guilt of the accused, that is to say, they should not be explainable on any other hypothesis except that the accused is guilty, (3) the circumstances should be of a conclusive nature and tendency, (4) they should exclude every possible hypothesis except the one to be proved, and (5) there must be a chain of evidence so complete as not to leave any reasonable ground for the conclusion consistent with the innocence of the accused and must show that in all human probability the act must have been done by the accused.” Applying these principles, the Court found the prosecution case deficient and directed that the appellant be released forthwith if not detained in any other case.

Background The crime arose on 11 October 2003 when Santosh Kumar Pandey (PW‑2), owner of a nearby kiosk, reported seeing the appellant walking towards a pond with her two children and later saw the children floating. PW‑2 said he then observed the appellant near railway tracks and prevented her from lying before an approaching train. The bodies were sent for post‑mortem, which recorded death by asphyxia due to drowning. A charge sheet followed; nine witnesses were examined at trial but the conviction rested largely on PW‑2’s testimony. The appellant denied the allegations under Section 313 Cr.P.C., stating she was under emotional strain after her husband’s second marriage, and pleaded innocence.

The trial court convicted and sentenced the appellant to life imprisonment; the Division Bench of the Chhattisgarh High Court dismissed her appeal. The appellant sought special leave to appeal to this Court; leave was granted and interim bail had earlier been directed by this Court pending final disposal.

The Supreme Court reviewed the law on circumstantial evidence, notably Sharad Birdhichand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra, and applied the test that circumstantial facts must be fully established, be consistent solely with guilt, be conclusive in tendency, exclude all other hypotheses, and form a complete chain leaving no reasonable ground for an inference of innocence. The Court also relied on principles articulated in Vadivelu Thevar regarding the evaluation of single‑witness testimony, stressing quality over quantity. On scrutiny, the Court found that the conviction depended entirely on PW‑2, whose trial testimony materially improved upon his earlier statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C.; material witnesses such as the rickshaw puller reported by PW‑2 were not examined. The Court characterised PW‑2’s testimony as contradictory and unworthy of reliance, at most amounting to hearsay, and held that the prosecution failed to establish the required chain of circumstantial evidence. Concluding that the conviction was unsafe and “totally based on conjectures and surmises,” the Court set aside the judgments below and ordered the appellant’s acquittal and release if not required in any other case. Pending applications were disposed of.

Case Details: Case No.: CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 2189 OF 2017 Case Title: Shail Kumari v. State of Chhattisgarh Appearances: For the Petitioner(s): Smt. Nanita Sharma, Advocate For the Respondent(s): Shri Prashant Singh, Additional Public Prosecutor