LexSHAIL KUMARI versus STATE OF CHHATTISGARH
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2025] 8 S.C.R. 599 : 2025 INSC 936 Shail Kumari v. State of Chhattisgarh (Criminal Appeal No. 2189 of 2017) 06 August 2025 [B.R. Gavai,* CJI and K. Vinod Chandran, JJ.] Issue for Consideration Whether the conviction, as recorded by the trial Court and affirmed by the High Court was totally based on conjectures and surmises; whether the conviction of the appellant u/s.302 IPC is sustainable in law. Headnotes† Penal Code, 1860 – s.302 – Allegation against the appellant-accused that she took her children to a pond/lake and drowned them – Trial Court convicted accused u/s.302 of IPC solely on the basis of evidence of PW-2 – The High Court upheld the conviction – Correctness: Held: The conviction in the present case could be sustainable only if the prosecution is in a position to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt and also establish a chain of events which is so connected to each other that it leads to no other conclusion than the guilt of the accused – The conviction is based solely on the evidence of PW-2 – 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 u/s.161, CrPC – As such his evidence is totally contradictory and therefore totally unworthy – 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 – This Court is 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 – The conviction of the appellant is not sustainable in law. [Paras 7, 8, 12, 13, 14] * Author 600 [2025] 8 S.C.R. Supreme Court Reports Evidence – Law on conviction in the case of circumstantial evidence – Discussed. [Paras 6 and 7] Case Law Cited Sharad Birdhichand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra [1985] 1 SCR 88 : (1984) 4 SCC 116; Vadivelu Thevar v. State of Madras [1957] 1 SCR 981 : 1957 SCC OnLine SC 13 – relied on. List of Acts Penal Code, 1860; Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. List of Keywords Circumstantial evidence; Chain of events; Improving examination-in-chief; Conviction on the basis of circumstantial evidence; Conjectures and surmises; Murder. Case Arising From CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal No. 2189 of 2017 From the Judgment and Order dated 08.09.2010 of the High Court of Chhatisgarh at Bilaspur in CRLA No. 713 of 2004 Appearances for Parties Advs. for the Appellant: Mrs. Nanita Sharma. Advs. for the Respondent: Prashant Singh, Mrs. Prerna Dhall, Ambuj Swaroop, Shivam Ganeshiya, Kapil Katare, Ms. Rajnandani Kumari. Judgment / Order of the Supreme Court Judgment B.R. Gavai, CJI. FACTUAL ASPECT 1. The present appeal challenges the judgment and order dated 8th September 2010, passed by a Division Bench of the High Court [2025] 8 S.C.R. 601 Shail Kumari v. State of Chhattisgarh of Chhattisgarh at Bilaspur (hereinafter referred to as “the High Court”) in Criminal Appeal No. 713 of 2004, wherein the Division Bench dismissed the appeal filed by the appellant herein - Shail Kumari. By the said judgment and order, the High Court upheld the judgment and order dated 18th June 2004 rendered by the 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Durg (hereinafter referred to as “the Trial Court”) in Sessions Trial No. 286 of 2003 convicting the appellant for the offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter referred to as “IPC”) and sentencing her to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life. 2. Shorn of details, the facts leading to the present appeal are as under: 2.1 The case of the prosecution is that on 11th October 2003, one Santosh Kumar Pandey (PW-2), who was an owner of Beetel Kiosk shop, saw the appellant with her two children (son aged – 2 years and daughter aged – 4 months) going towards Pujari Talab (a water body situated near the Beetel Kiosk shop of PW-2). He observed that the appellant was taking the kids in a disordered condition and grew suspicious. He asked a nearby Rickshaw Puller to go and see where the appellant was going. After five to seven minutes, the Rickshaw Puller came back and stated
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.