PARUBAI versus THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

Citation: [2021] 8 S.C.R. 135 · Decided: 10-08-2021 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: HEMANT GUPTA · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

cites 1 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
135
PARUBAI
v.
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA
(Criminal Appeal No.1154 of 2018)
AUGUST 10, 2021
[HEMANT GUPTA AND A. S. BOPANNA, JJ.]
Penal Code, 1860: ss. 302 and 436 – Murder – Fire incident
at mid-night wherein house of appellant and her family engulfed in
flames – Appellant-second wife came out of the house unscathed,
whereas the first wife and her two children caught by flames and
two of them died later – Conviction and sentence of the appellant
u/ss. 302 and 436 by the courts below, though her husband and
her mother-in-law acquitted by the trial court – On appeal, held:
Links in the chain of circumstances is necessary to be established
for conviction on the basis of circumstantial evidence – Mere
suspicion would not be sufficient, unless the circumstantial evidence
tendered by the prosecution leads to the conclusion that it “must be
true” and not “may be true” – Courts below made suspicion the
reason for rendering conviction without there being any strong basis
– Suspicion, however strong, cannot take the place of proof – As
regards the circumstance which raise a doubt that the appellant
was not injured in the incident, it is to be noted that the natural
human conduct is that when there is any incident or accident the
immediate reaction is to get away from the scene and save oneself –
It cannot be a circumstance to hold a person guilty of a serious
crime as murder unless the other circumstances in the chain point
to the guilt of the accused – Circumstances in the chain are not
established, the same cannot be held against the appellant – In
view thereof, the appellant to be given the benefit of doubt – Thus,
the order of conviction cannot be sustained and is set aside –
Evidence.
Allowing the appeal, the Court
HELD: 1.1 The links in the chain of circumstances is
necessary to be established for conviction on the basis of
circumstantial evidence. The mere suspicion would not be
sufficient, unless the circumstantial evidence tendered by the
[2021] 8 S.C.R. 135
135
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
136
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2021] 8 S.C.R.
prosecution leads to the conclusion that it “must be true” and
not “may be true”. [Paras 13, 14][145-F; 147-C-D]
1.2 The High Court held the appellant guilty more on
preponderance of probability rather than reaching a conclusion
beyond reasonable doubt. Though it has employed the phrase
‘beyond reasonable doubt’ in its concluding paragraph, the
reasoning preceding the same are only conjectures and surmises.
The sole circumstance noted by the High Court with reference
to the evidence is that the burnt frock of deceased N was seized,
vide a Panchnama and the evidence of PW-8 that the frock had
been sent for chemical analysis and the report shows that
Kerosene residues were detected thereon. In that circumstance,
the High Court held that kerosene was used for setting the
deceased N on fire. Even if that was taken as a circumstance in
the chain, the same was insufficient unless the other circumstances
in the chain were connected to point at the appellant. In that
regard, what is relevant to be noted is that the High Court has in
its earlier part of the reasoning disbelieved the recovery of the
can which is stated who have smelt of kerosene since the said
can had not been sent for chemical analysis and also the
circumstance under which it was said to have been recovered. If
that be the position, even if the chemical analysis report referring
to the frock is accepted there is nothing on record to connect
that the appellant was responsible for the sprinkling of the
kerosene or for the kerosene to have come in contact with the
frock of N which is said to have been recovered from the place of
occurrence. That apart, the declaration of M, the deceased
discloses that since there is no electricity in the agricultural field,
they sleep in the house and keep a lantern light in the night for
which kerosene is obviously used. Further, it has come in
evidence that in the said house cooking is also done and the
material pertaining to the tractor including diesel can was also
kept therein. Therefore, the circumstance that the appellant was
not injured in the incident cannot be the basis to rely on the
presence of kerosene stains on the frock as a circumstance that
she had set fire by sprinkling kerosene. [Para 11, 12][144-G-H;
145-A-F]
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
137
1.3 A perusal of the judgment passed by the Session’s Court
as well as the High Court for its ultimate conclusion made
suspicion the reason for rendering 

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.