The Supreme Court of India, in a significant judgment delivered on August 6, 2025, acquitted Shail Kumari in a case involving the drowning of her two children in 2003. The Court overturned the decisions of the Trial Court and the High Court of Chhattisgarh, citing a lack of reliable evidence and inconsistencies in witness testimony. The case, which had spanned over two decades, highlights the critical importance of conclusive proof in criminal convictions, especially those based on circumstantial evidence.
Background of the Case
The case dates back to October 11, 2003, when Shail Kumari was accused of drowning her two children-a 2-year-old son and a 4-month-old daughter-in Pujari Talab, a water body in Durg, Chhattisgarh. The prosecution's case relied heavily on the testimony of Santosh Kumar Pandey (PW-2), a shop owner who claimed to have witnessed the incident. According to PW-2, he saw Shail Kumari heading towards the pond in a disturbed state and later found the children floating in the water. He also alleged that she attempted suicide by lying on railway tracks, which he prevented.
Based on PW-2's account, Shail Kumari was charged under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) for murder. The Trial Court convicted her in 2004, sentencing her to life imprisonment. The High Court upheld this decision in 2010, leading to the appeal before the Supreme Court.
Read also:- Kerala High Court Allows Repayment in Installments for Overdue Bank Loan
The Supreme Court, led by Chief Justice B.R. Gavai, scrutinized the evidence and identified glaring inconsistencies in PW-2's testimony. The Court noted that his statements in court were significantly improved versions of his initial police report, lacking corroboration from other witnesses. Notably, the Rickshaw Puller, who was allegedly directed by PW-2 to follow Shail Kumari, was never examined, casting doubt on the prosecution's narrative.
The judgment extensively referenced the principles laid down in Sharad Birdhichand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra (1984), which outline the requirements for convicting an accused based on circumstantial evidence:
"The circumstances must be fully established, consistent only with the guilt of the accused, and exclude every possible hypothesis of innocence. The chain of evidence must be so complete that it leaves no reasonable doubt."
Read also:- Gujarat High Court Recalls Conviction After Discovering Accused Died 9 Years Ago
The Court found that the prosecution failed to meet these standards. PW-2's testimony, the sole basis of the conviction, was deemed unreliable due to contradictions and lack of corroboration. The Court also cited Vadivelu Thevar v. State of Madras (1957), which classifies witnesses into three categories: wholly reliable, wholly unreliable, and partially reliable. PW-2's account fell into the second category, rendering it insufficient for conviction.
Key Takeaways from the Judgment
- Circumstantial Evidence Must Be Unbreakable: The Court emphasized that convictions based on circumstantial evidence require an unbroken chain of events pointing solely to the accused's guilt.
- Witness Reliability Is Paramount: Testimonies must be consistent and free from contradictions. Improvements or omissions in statements can render them unreliable.
- Corroboration Is Essential: The absence of supporting evidence, such as the Rickshaw Puller's testimony in this case, weakens the prosecution's argument.
Case Title: Shail Kumari v. State of Chhattisgarh
Case No.: Criminal Appeal No. 2189 of 2017 (Originally arising from Sessions Trial No. 286 of 2003 and Criminal Appeal No. 713 of 2004 before the High Court of Chhattisgarh)