Summary
The Supreme Court acquitted a mother convicted under Section 302 IPC for drowning her two infant children, holding that in a case resting on circumstantial evidence the conviction was founded solely on the testimony of one witness (PW-2) whose deposition was a complete improvement over his police statement, that the rickshaw puller who allegedly saw the children in the pond was never examined, and that the concurrent findings were therefore based on conjectures and surmises.
Issues
- Whether a conviction for murder resting on circumstantial evidence could be sustained when it was based solely on the testimony of a single witness whose examination-in-chief materially improved upon his statement under Section 161 CrPC.
- Whether the chain of circumstances was complete enough to exclude every hypothesis other than the guilt of the appellant.
Provisions considered
- Section 302, Indian Penal Code, 1860The appellant had been convicted of murder and sentenced to life imprisonment by the trial court, as affirmed by the High Court; the Supreme Court found the conviction unsustainable because the only evidence connecting her to the deaths was unreliable, and acquitted her. (¶¶ 1, 2.6, 14, 15)
- Section 161, Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973The Court compared PW-2's court testimony with his statement recorded by the police under Section 161 and found that what he narrated in court did not find place in that statement at all, rendering his evidence a complete improvement and wholly unworthy of credit. (¶¶ 10, 12)
- Section 134, Indian Evidence Act, 1872Applying Vadivelu Thevar, the Court reiterated that no particular number of witnesses is required to prove a fact and that evidence is weighed, not counted; a conviction may rest on a single witness only if that witness is wholly reliable, and PW-2 fell well short of that standard. (¶¶ 11, 12)
Held
- In a case resting on circumstantial evidence, the five conditions laid down in Sharad Birdhichand Sarda must be satisfied: the circumstances must be fully established, consistent only with the hypothesis of guilt, conclusive in nature, exclusive of every other hypothesis, and form a chain so complete as to leave no reasonable ground for a conclusion consistent with innocence. A conviction is sustainable only if the prosecution proves its case beyond reasonable doubt and establishes such a connected chain of events. (¶¶ 6, 7)
- Witnesses fall into three categories: wholly reliable, wholly unreliable, and neither. A court may convict or acquit on a single wholly reliable witness and must discard a wholly unreliable one; only for the third category must it separate the chaff from the grain and look for corroboration. PW-2, having fully improved his case in examination-in-chief beyond his Section 161 statement, gave evidence that was totally contradictory and unworthy of credit. (¶¶ 11, 12)
- Although nine witnesses were examined, the conviction rested solely on PW-2. Apart from his testimony there was nothing to connect the appellant with the crime; the prosecution did not even examine the rickshaw puller who allegedly saw the appellant going towards the pond and the children floating in it. PW-2's account, being unreliable, could at most be treated as hearsay. (¶¶ 8, 13)
- A conviction recorded by the trial court and affirmed by the High Court that rests on conjectures and surmises is not sustainable in law; concurrent findings do not bar interference where the case is one of no reliable evidence. (¶ 14)
Result
Appeal allowed; judgment of the High Court dated 08/09/2010 and judgment of the trial court dated 18/06/2004 quashed and set aside; appellant acquitted of all charges and directed to be released forthwith if not required in any other case; pending applications disposed of.