The links in the chain of circumstances is necessary to be established for conviction on the basis of circumstantial evidence. The Supreme Court allowed the Criminal Appeal No. 1154 of 2018 filed by the Appellant (Parubai) and set aside the ruling of the High Court passed in the judgement dated 12.10.2017 which affirmed the conviction and sentence ordered by the Sessions Court.
FACTS OF THE CASE:
Gulab son of Gajanan Watane was married to the deceased Mandabai and they had two children namely Akash, a son aged 5 years and Nikita, the daughter aged 2 years. The said Gulab had an extra marital affair with the appellant and ultimately married her on 02.01.2006 and got their marriage registered on 18.02.2006. Thereafter the appellant was also living with her husband and Mandabai, the wife from the first marriage. The parents of Gulab were also living with them and were residing in the small house which consisted of three rooms. One of the rooms in the house was occupied by their servant named Piraji Mankari. When this was the position the husband of the appellant Gulab had gone to Jalna on 02.08.2006 to procure tyres for the tractor. The mother-in-law had gone to her daughter’s place to assist her for delivery. When this was the position, on the intervening night of 2/3.08.2006 at about 2.30 to 3.00 am an incident of fire occurred and the house in which the appellant and her family were residing caught fire. The appellant who was also in the house had come out of the house unscathed while Mandabai the first wife of Gulab and their daughter Nikita rushed out of the house with burn injuries, while their son Akash got burnt to death inside the house. The father-in-law of the appellant was stated to be sleeping outside the house on a cot and noticed the injuries suffered by his daughter-in-law Mandabai and granddaughter Nikita after waking up and directly instructed the servant Piraji Mankari to secure a jeep and shift them to hospital. Accordingly, they were shifted to the hospital where on the next day the said Mandabai and her daughter Nikita died due to the burn injuries suffered by them. The following issue arises in the case stated above:
- Whether the High Courts decision to convict the Appellant under Section 302 and 436 of the Indian Penal Code was the right decision and whether the chain of circumstances in which the appellant is convicted is complete or no?
JUDGEMENT GIVEN BY THE SUPREME COURT:
The Supreme Court in its judgement ruled by Justice A.S.Bopanna and Justice Hemant Gupta noted that the High Court in its proceedings stated that the evidence presented on behalf of the Prosecution was labelled as not trustworthy and hence discarded but ultimately the conclusion reached out by the high court was only made on the assumption that the appellant had not suffered any injuries due to the fire caught in the house. The Court notices that the incident if caused by any person with the intention to cause death is gruesome and here it has caused the death of three people two of them were small children which makes the offence unpardonable. However, in a case where the appellant was proceeded against mainly based on the extrajudicial confession said to have been made to her father-in-law namely Gajanan and the said evidence has been disbelieved by the High Court as not being trustworthy, the issue would be as to whether the chain of circumstances to convict the appellant is complete. The Supreme Court extracted the reasons assigned and conclusion reached by the High Court in the earlier portion of this order only to note that the High Court has 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 Nikita was seized, the evidence 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 has held that kerosene was used for setting the deceased Nikita 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. Here the thing to be noted is that the High Court had refused and disbelieved the recovery of the can which smelt like kerosene since the can had not been sent for chemical analysis and also the circumstances under which it was 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 Nikita which is said to have been recovered from the place of occurrence. That apart, the declaration of Mandabai, the deceased on 03.08.2006 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 be 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.
The position of law is well settled that the links in the chain of circumstances is necessary to be established for conviction on the basis of circumstantial evidence which is established in the case Sharad Birdhichand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra, (1984) 4 SCC 116. It may be noted here that this Court indicated that the circumstances concerned “must or should” and not “may be” established. There is not only a grammatical but a legal distinction between “may be proved” and “must be or should be proved” as was held by this Court in Shivaji Sahabrao Bobade v. State of Maharashtra, SCC (Cri) p.1047. Further the 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”. This was established in the case Devilal Vs. State of Rajasthan (2019) 19 SCC 447. It has further been considered by this Court in Sujit Biswas v. State of Assam 2013(12) SCC 406 and Raja v. State of Haryana 2015(11) SCC 43. It has been propounded that while scrutinising the circumstantial evidence, a court has to evaluate it to ensure the chain of events is established clearly and completely to rule out any reasonable likelihood of innocence of the accused. the circumstances adduced when considered collectively, it must lead only to the conclusion that there cannot be a person other than the accused who alone is the perpetrator of the crime alleged and the circumstances must establish the conclusive nature consistent only with the hypothesis of the guilt of the accused.
The High Court’s ultimate conclusion has made suspicion the reason for rendering conviction without there being any strong basis. The suspicion, however strong, cannot take the place of proof. If the facts as noted by the High Court lead to such suspicion, equally there are also circumstances which raise a doubt whether the appellant can be held guilty only because she was not injured in the incident. In that regard, what is to be noted is 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. If in the middle of the night for whatever reason there was fire and if the appellant had woken up and noticed it a little earlier, the natural conduct is to run out of the house instead of going into the house which is burning to check on the other inmates. It takes a person lot of courage or be overdriven with compassion to get back into the house to save somebody else and not doing so may be considered as morally wrong for not coming to the aid of fellow human being in distress, but it cannot be a circumstance to hold a person guilty of a crime which is as serious as murder unless the other circumstances in the chain point to the accused so as to lead to an irresistible conclusion of being guilty. If the appellant was responsible for causing the fire with the intention to kill Mandabai, would not she have closed the door after coming out of the house to ensure that she does not come out. On the other hand, Mandabai who came out alive and lived for a day has not blamed or suspected anybody including the appellant. She would have stated about the overt act if any was indulged in by the appellant. Her declaration is clear that the house caught fire and she and her children were caught in the fire. She did not state that the fire set on her had spread to the house. One other circumstance is also that the admitted position is that the house had three rooms, one of which was occupied by Piraji Mankari and his family, the fire accident was of the nature which had destroyed the entire house and also the adjoining cowshed etc. Even in that position the said Piraji Mankari and others were also not injured. Therefore, not being injured alone cannot be held as a circumstance to hold one guilty of having set fire to the house.
Thus, taking into consideration all these aspects in the facts and circumstance of this case we are of the opinion that the appellant is entitled to be acquitted as the benefit of doubt weighs in her favour. We are therefore, unable to sustain the order of conviction of the appellant. In the result, the judgment dated 12.10.2017 passed by the High Court affirming the conviction and sentence ordered by the Sessions Court is set aside. The appellant Parubai who is on interim bail is set at liberty and her bail bond shall stand discharged. The appeal is, accordingly, allowed. Pending applications, if any, shall stand disposed of.
For reading the complete judgment, please click below:-
PARUBAI vs THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA [CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1154 OF 2018]