Summary
The appellant's conviction under Section 302 IPC for the murder of her infant son by strangulation, affirmed by the High Court, rested on alleged extra-judicial confessions to her husband and village functionaries and on circumstantial evidence. The Supreme Court held that the extra-judicial confessions suffered from serious infirmities, that a material witness to them was not examined, and that the circumstantial evidence (uncertain whereabouts, time gap, an unconnected and commonly available dupatta never shown to the autopsy doctor, conduct consistent with innocence and no convincing motive) did not form a complete chain, and acquitted her.
Issues
- Whether the conviction for murder could be sustained on extra-judicial confessions allegedly made to the appellant's husband, the Ward Member, the Pradhan and another villager.
- Whether the circumstantial evidence formed a complete chain pointing only to the appellant's guilt.
Provisions considered
- Section 302, Penal Code, 1860The appellant had been convicted of murdering her infant son and sentenced to life imprisonment. The Court found that the prosecution had not proved guilt beyond reasonable doubt and set aside the conviction and sentence. (¶¶ 1, 23, 24)
- Section 313, Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973In her statement under Section 313 the appellant denied the extra-judicial confessions, gave an alternative explanation of finding the child unresponsive in the morning, and strenuously denied producing the dupatta. The Court treated this explanation, and the prosecution's failure to examine a woman (Sita Devi) said to have come on hearing her cries, as weakening the prosecution case. (¶¶ 13, 17)
Held
- An extra-judicial confession is a weak piece of evidence; a conviction for murder should not ordinarily rest on it unless it inspires confidence and is corroborated by other evidence of a clinching nature. Where it suffers from material discrepancies or inherent improbabilities the court is justified in ruling it out of consideration. (¶¶ 11, 12, 23)
- Although the prosecution need not examine every possible witness, it must produce those essential to substantiate the truth; unexplained non-examination of a relevant witness (here, a woman said to have been present when the confession was made) permits an adverse inference against the prosecution. (¶ 13)
- Circumstantial evidence must satisfy the five 'golden principles' of Sharad Birdhi Chand Sarda: the circumstances must be fully established, consistent only with guilt, conclusive, exclusive of every other hypothesis, and form a complete chain. (¶ 14)
- The chain was incomplete: the appellant's whereabouts on the critical night were not conclusively established, the husband conceding the Katli house was double-storeyed so she could have been there unseen; a gap of about two hours between strangulation and death and eight hours before examination left room for others to have had access to the child. (¶¶ 15, 16)
- The recovery of a commonly available dupatta, denied by the accused under Section 313, which was never shown to the doctor who conducted the post-mortem and whose blood and skin-tissue stains were never linked to the deceased, could not be conclusively connected to the offence; the opinion that death 'could be due to throttling' was also tentative. (¶¶ 17, 18, 19)
- The appellant's subsequent conduct in urgently seeking medical help for the child rather than concealing the crime or fleeing is more consistent with innocence than guilt and is a significant inconsistency in the prosecution narrative. (¶ 20)
- Absence of motive cannot by itself be a ground to reject the prosecution case, but in a case resting on circumstantial evidence it weighs in favour of the accused; the suggested motive (resentment at the husband visiting his ancestral village) defied logic since the appellant herself had visited that village with him and the child. (¶¶ 21, 22)
Result
Appeal allowed; conviction and sentence under Section 302 IPC set aside; appellant acquitted and, being on bail, discharged from her bail bonds.