LexSHANTI DEVI versus STATE OF HARYANA
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2025] 8 S.C.R. 919 : 2025 INSC 987 Shanti Devi v. State of Haryana (Criminal Appeal No. 2861 of 2025) 06 August 2025 [Manoj Misra and Sandeep Mehta,* JJ.] Issue for Consideration Issue arose whether the courts below were justified in convicting and sentencing the appellant for the offences punishable u/ss.302/34 and 201/34 IPC for the alleged murder of the son of the informant. Headnotes† Penal Code, 1860 – ss.302/34 and 201/34 – Murder – Prosecution case that three persons-appellant, her son and another lady convicted and sentenced u/ss.302/34 and 201/34 for the alleged murder of the son of the informant – Informant’s case that the appellant and her son, were in illegal occupation of the house owned by the victim together with the other lady and some unknown persons murdered his son because he wanted to get the house vacated – Other lady died pending appeal – High Court upheld the order passed by the trial court – Correctness: Held: Evidence led by the prosecution not sufficient and lacks credibility so as to form a complete chain of incriminating circumstances warranting the affirmation of the prosecution case – Entire case of the prosecution discarded – Prosecution failed to prove even a single of these so-called incriminating circumstances so as to justify the conviction of the appellant for the charge of murdering the informant’s son – Trial court as well as the High Court in appellate jurisdiction grossly erred while appreciating the evidence and holding the testimony of the witnesses who gave evidence on the last seen together theory and the extra-judicial confession theory to be reliable – Theory of motive attributed by the prosecution to the appellant and her son not convincing – Alleged motive neither justified nor substantiated by evidence – Both the * Author 920 [2025] 8 S.C.R. Supreme Court Reports courts have, despite the negative FSL report, relied upon the so- called incriminating recoveries – Reliance placed by the courts below on the recoveries misplaced and unjustified – Furthermore, the negative FSL report makes the recoveries inconsequential – Impugned judgment by the High Court and the trial court do not stand to scrutiny and are quashed and set aside – Appellant is acquitted of the charges – Entire case of the prosecution being discarded, the benefit extended to the non-appealing accused, son of the appellant and is acquitted of the charges. [Paras 13-39] Case Law Cited Sharad Birdhichand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra [1985] 1 SCR 88 : (1984) 4 SCC 116; Sahadevan v. State of Tamil Nadu [2012] 4 SCR 366 : (2012) 6 SCC 403 – referred to. List of Acts Penal Code, 1860; Evidence Act, 1872; Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. List of Keywords Murder; Illegal occupation; Chain of incriminating circumstances; Appellate jurisdiction; Testimony of the witnesses; Last seen together theory; Extra-judicial confession theory; Theory of motive; Negative FSL report; Incriminating recoveries; Recoveries; Benefit to the non-appealing accused. Case Arising From CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal No. 2861 of 2025 From the Judgment and Order dated 24.05.2024 of the High Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh in CRAD No. 178 of 2023 Appearances for Parties Advs. for the Appellant: Dr. Nirmal Chopra, Ms. Aaina Verma, Amit Kumar. Advs. for the Respondent: Vishal Khattar, A.A.G., Akshay Amritanshu, Ms. Drishti Rawal, Ms. Drishti Saraf, Sarthak Shrivastava, Mayur Goyal. [2025] 8 S.C.R. 921 Shanti Devi v. State of Haryana Judgment / Order of the Supreme Court Judgment Mehta, J. 1. The accused-appellant Shanti Devi, Rajbir (accused No. 2) and Veena (accused No.3) faced trial in the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Hisar1 for the offences punishable under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 18602 and Section 201 read with Section 34 IPC. 2. The learned trial Court vide judgment dated 14th January, 2003, held all the three accused guilty of the aforesaid charges and vide sentencing order dated 16th January, 2003, all the three accused were sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life for the commission of offence punishable under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC and a fine of Rs. 1000/- with default stipulation and to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 3 years and fine of Rs. 500/- each for the charge under Section 201 IPC read with Section 34 IPC with the default stipulation. 3. The accused-appellant Shanti Devi and Rajbi
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.