SATNI BAI versus STATE OF M. P. (NOW CHHATTISGARH)

Citation: [2010] 2 S.C.R. 186 · Decided: 29-01-2010 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: P. SATHASIVAM · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
[2010] 2 S.C.R. 186 
SATNI BAI 
v. 
STATE OF M. P. (NOW CHHATTISGARH) 
(Civil Appeal No. 212 of 2010) 
JANUARY 29, 2010 
[P. SATHASIVAM AND H.L. DATTU, JJ.] 
Penal Code, 1860: s. 302 - Conviction under, on the 
basis of circumstantial evidence - Accused prosecuted for 
C killing 11er own son - Evidence of close relatives that accused 
was found near dead body of her son with blood stained axe 
in her hand - Her sari was also blood stained - On seeing 
them, she tried to flee away from scene of crime -
Circumstances pointing her involvement in the crime -
D Defence not able to dispel the chain of events which emerged 
from the testimony of these witnesses -Case of false 
implication also not made out - No reason to interfere with 
the order of conviction - Evidence - Circumstantial evidence. 
E 
Witness: Hostile witness - Testimony of - Evidentiary 
value - Girl who allegedly saw dead body of 4 years old boy 
declared hostile witness and contradictions in her testimony 
- Held: Witness was a 16 year old girl, with an impressionable 
mind - It was likely that she was shocked beyond belief at the 
sight of the dead body - With passage of time between the 
F occurrence of the crime and recording of her testimony, her 
memory of the incident might have blurred - That by itself 
would not be enough to affect the prosecution case -
Evidence. 
G 
Tll'ial court convicted appellant for killing her own son 
and sentenced her to life imprisonment. The conviction 
was based on circumstantial evidence. High court upheld 
the conviction. Hence the appeal. 
H 
186 
SATNI BAI v. STATE OF M.P. (NOW CHHATIISGARH) 187 
Dismissing the appeal, the Court 
HELD: 1.1. When a case rests only on circumstantial 
evidence, the inference of guilt can be justified only when 
all the incriminating facts and circumstances are found 
A 
to be incompatible with the innocence of the accused or 
8 
the guilt of any other person. The circumstances from 
which an inference as to the guilt of the accused is drawn, 
have to be proved beyond reasonable doubt and have 
to be shown to be closely connected with the principal 
fact sought to be inferred from those circumstances. 
C 
[Para 11] [193-G-H; 194-A] 
State of U.P. vs. Satish, (2005) 3 SCC 114; Joseph vs. 
State of Kera/a, (2000) 5 SCC 197; Padala Veera Reddy v. 
State of Andhra Pradesh, AIR 1990 SC 79; Chenga Reddy 
and ors. v. State of Andhra Pradesh, AIR 1996 SC 3390, State 
D 
of U.P. vs. Ashok Kumar Srivastava, (1992) 2 SCC 86, relied 
on. 
, · 1.2. This case is not of direct evidence of committing 
murder of deceased by the accused/appellant, who is 
none other than the mother of the deceased, but is based 
on circumstantial evidence. The circumstances brought 
on record by the prosecution were of two categories. The 
accused was seen at the place of occurrence holding 
blood stained axe in her hand near the dead body of the 
deceased and she also tried to run away from the place 
E 
F 
of occurrence. The axe which was snatched from the 
accused by PW-2 and the saree of the accused were 
found stained with the blood. To prove the first 
circumstance, the prosecution examined PW-1, PW-2 and 
PW-4. The evidence of PW-1 was corroborated by the 
G 
evidence of PW-2 and PW-4. In the cross-examination of 
these witnesses, the defence was not able to elicit any 
circumstance which shows that the accused was not 
present when PW-1 and PW-2 went to the scene of 
occurrence and-, ·therefore, the presence of the accused 
H 
188 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2010] 2 S.C.R. 
A at the place of occurrence near the dead body of her son 
holding blood stained axe in her hand was established. 
These witnesses were closely related to the appellant. 
There are no inherent contradictions in the testimony of 
these witnes~s. The defence was unable to dispel the 
B chain of events which emerged from the testimony of 
these witnesses. [Para 17] [196-G-H; 196-A-D; 197-C; 197-
D-E] 
' 
1.3. According to the doctor who prepared the post 
C mortem report, wound No.2 was life endangering and 
undoubtedly was caused by the axe which was 
recovered from the hands of the accused. The post 
mortem report coupled with the testimony of the 
witnesses presents a very clear and cogent chain of the 
events which occurred on the fateful day unerringly 
D points towards the guilt of the appellant. The picture 
emerging has also not been refuted satisfactorily by the 
defence. [Para 19] [198-C-D] 
2. Motherhood is one of the most precio

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