CJI B.R. Gavai, Justice K. Vinod Chandran, Supreme Court
Testimony Being Unreliable, Can Be Treated As Hearsay Evidence: Supreme Court Acquits Woman Accused Of Killing Her Children
|The appeal before the Supreme Court was filed against the judgment of the Chhattisgarh High Court in a Criminal Appeal convicting the appellant for the offence punishable under Section 302 of the IPC.
The Supreme Court has acquitted a woman accused of killing her children after finding the testimony of a shop owner, who made the allegations, to be unreliable. The Apex Court held that his testimony could be treated as hearsay evidence.
The appeal was filed against the judgment of a Division Bench of the Chhattisgarh High Court in a Criminal Appeal convicting the appellant for the offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) and sentencing her to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life.
The Division Bench of Chief Justice of India B.R. Gavai and Justice K. Vinod Chandran stated, “Apart from the testimony of PW-2, there is nothing to connect the present appellant with the crime in question. 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. The testimony of PW-2 being unreliable, at the most, can be treated as hearsay evidence.”
AOR Nanita Sharma represented the Appellant, while Advocate Prerna Dhall represented the Respondent.
Factual Background
The case of the prosecution was that one Santosh Kumar Pandey (PW-2), who was the owner of a Beetel Kiosk shop, saw the appellant with her two children (son aged 2 years and daughter aged – 4 months) going towards a water body. He observed that the appellant was taking the kids in a disordered condition and grew suspicious. A nearby Rickshaw Puller stated that two children were floating in the water body. Thereafter, the shop owner saw the appellant going towards the railway tracks. He saw a train coming towards the appellant, but somehow, he managed to drag her away from the train tracks.
The reason for killing her children was that she had been fighting with her husband. A First Information Report was lodged. The Trial Court convicted the 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. Being aggrieved thereby, the appellant preferred a criminal appeal before the High Court, but the same was dismissed. Being aggrieved thereby, a Special Leave Petition was filed and the appellant was granted leave in the matter. The appellant was also directed to be released on interim bail.
Reasoning
The Bench, at the outset, noted that the case rests on circumstantial evidence. On a perusal of the evidence of the owner, it was found that his statement in the examination-in-chief was a complete improvement over what was stated by him in his police statement. Whatever he narrated before the Court did not find place in his police statement.
“The perusal of the cross-examination of PW-2 would reveal that he has fully improved his case in his examination-in-chief. He has narrated what does not find place in his statement under Section 161, Cr.P.C. As such, his evidence is totally contradictory and therefore totally unworthy”, it said.
The Bench thus held, “In that view of the matter, 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.”
Thus, allowing the appeal, the Bench acquitted the appellant of all the charges levelled against her.
Cause Title: Shail Kumari v. State of Chhattisgarh (Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 936)
Appearance
Appellant: AOR Nanita Sharma, Advocate Vivek Sharma
Respondent: Advocates Prerna Dhall, Ambuj Swaroop, Shivam Ganeshiya, Kapil Katare, Rajnandani Kumari, AOR Prashant Singh