The Supreme Court of India has acquitted a woman convicted for the murder of her two young children, holding that a conviction cannot be sustained on the basis of “conjectures and surmises.” A bench comprising Chief Justice of India B.R. Gavai and Justice K. Vinod Chandran set aside the concurrent findings of the Chhattisgarh High Court and the trial court, ruling that the prosecution’s case, which rested entirely on the circumstantial evidence of a single witness, was not proven beyond a reasonable doubt. The Court found the testimony of the sole witness to be a “complete improvement” over his police statement and therefore “totally unworthy” of reliance.
Background of the Case
The prosecution’s case originated from an incident on October 11, 2003. Santosh Kumar Pandey (PW-2), the owner of a Beetel Kiosk shop, testified that he saw the appellant, Shail Kumari, with her two children (a 2-year-old son and a 4-month-old daughter) walking towards Pujari Talab, a nearby water body. Suspicious of her “disordered condition,” he asked a rickshaw puller to observe where she was going.
According to PW-2, the rickshaw puller returned after five to seven minutes and reported that two children were floating in the water. PW-2 then saw the appellant walking towards the railway tracks. He hailed a passing motorcyclist and rushed to the tracks, managing to pull the appellant away just as a train was approaching. Upon being questioned, the appellant allegedly told PW-2 that she had a fight with her husband.
Following this, a Dehati Merg Intimation and subsequently a First Information Report (FIR) were lodged. The post-mortem examination of the two children, conducted by Dr. P. Akhtar (PW-6), confirmed the cause of death for both as asphyxia due to drowning.
During her examination under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C.), the appellant denied the allegations. She stated that she was in a state of tension because her husband, Kanhaiya Lal Kharre, had entered into a second marriage. She maintained her innocence and claimed she was falsely implicated.
On June 18, 2004, the 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Durg, convicted the appellant for murder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and sentenced her to life imprisonment. The High Court of Chhattisgarh at Bilaspur upheld this decision via its judgment on September 8, 2010, which the appellant then challenged before the Supreme Court.
Arguments of the Parties
Appearing for the appellant, Advocate Smt. Nanita Sharma argued that it was a case of “no evidence” and the conviction was based purely on “conjectures and surmises.”
Representing the State of Chhattisgarh, Advocate Shri Prashant Singh contended that the concurrent findings of the lower courts were based on a correct appreciation of evidence and showed no perversity, warranting no interference from the Supreme Court.
The Supreme Court’s Analysis
The Supreme Court began its analysis by observing that the case rested entirely on circumstantial evidence. The bench reiterated the five “golden principles” for conviction in such cases, as established in the landmark case of Sharad Birdhichand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra (1984):
- The circumstances from which the conclusion of guilt is to be drawn should be fully established.
- The facts so established should be consistent only with the hypothesis of the guilt of the accused.
- The circumstances should be of a conclusive nature and tendency.
- They should exclude every possible hypothesis except the one to be proved.
- 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.
The Court noted that the conviction by both the trial court and the High Court was based solely on the testimony of PW-2. Upon scrutinizing his evidence, the Court found significant contradictions. It observed, “The perusal of the cross-examination of this witness, it would reveal that his statement in the examination-in-chief is a complete improvement than what was stated by him in his police statement. Whatever he narrated before the Court does not find place in his police statement.”
The judgment then referred to the principles laid down in Vadivelu Thevar v. State of Madras (1957), which classifies witnesses into three categories: (1) wholly reliable, (2) wholly unreliable, and (3) neither wholly reliable nor wholly unreliable. The Court placed PW-2 in the second category, stating, “As such, his evidence is totally contradictory and therefore totally unworthy.”
The bench also highlighted a critical lapse by the prosecution: “The prosecution has not even examined the Rickshaw Puller who was stated to have seen the appellant going towards the Pujari Talab and the children floating in the lake.”
Concluding its analysis, the Court held that with the sole witness’s testimony being unreliable, there was nothing else to connect the appellant to the crime. “The testimony of PW-2 being unreliable, at the most, can be treated as hearsay evidence,” the Court stated. The bench unequivocally found that the conviction was unsustainable.
The Final Decision
In its final verdict delivered on August 6, 2025, the Supreme Court allowed the appeal. The judgment stated, “We are of the considered opinion that the conviction, as recorded by the Trial Court and affirmed by the High Court is totally based on conjectures and surmises. We are of the considered view that the conviction of the appellant is not sustainable in law at all.”
The Court passed the following order:
- The appeal is allowed.
- The judgment of the High Court dated September 8, 2010, and the judgment of the Trial Court dated June 18, 2004, are quashed and set aside.
- The appellant, Shail Kumari, is acquitted of all charges and is directed to be released forthwith if not required in any other case.
