Satni Bai vs State Of Madhya Pradesh (Now ... on 29 January, 2010

      IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

                   CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

                    CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 212 OF 2010

                   (Arising out of S.L.P.(Crl.) No.5813 of 2007)

Satni Bai .............. Appellant  Versus

State of Madhya Pradesh (Now Chhattisgarh) ..............Respondent    JUDGMENT

H.L. Dattu, J.

 "A mother is the truest friend we have, when trials heavy and sudden, fall
upon us; when adversity takes the place of prosperity; when friends who rejoice
with us in our sunshine desert us; when trouble thickens around us, still she
cling to us, and endeavor by her kind precepts and counsels to dissipate the
clouds of darkness, and cause peace to return to our hearts"  - Washington
Irving

                   Leave granted.

   2) It is in this backdrop, we seek to introduce the facts of this  case : A
wicked mother is facing life sentence having been   1

      convicted under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code for killing  her own
son with an axe by the Court of First Additional Judge,  Ambikapur in Case no.
366 of 1996. On appeal, the conviction is  upheld by the Division Bench of the
Chhattisgarh High Court.   3) The appellant, Satni Bai is the mother of the
deceased.  She belongs to a tribal community. She has filed this appeal from
prison, where she is undergoing her sentence of life imprisonment.  She is
represented by amicus curiae in this appeal.   4) The case of the prosecution is
that, on 18.8.1996, Heera  PW-1 and his elder brother Naihar Sai had gone to the
forest in the  morning to collect wood and at about 1.00 P.M., they returned to
the house and when they were sitting inside the house, they heard  the cries of
his daughter, Sumitra PW-4 and Anita, the daughter of  his younger brother. On
hearing the cries, they came out of the  house and went towards the side from
where the sound of cries  were heard and saw Kannilal (deceased) lying in a pool
of blood.  Heera lodged the report P-1 in the Police Station, Sitapur. A.K.
Tiwari PW-7 was officiating in the post of Station House Officer,  Sitapur. He
had recorded the statements of Heera PW-1 Balobai    2

      PW-2 and Sumitra PW-4. Heera PW-1 had stated that the  appellant/accused
was standing near the dead body of Kannilal  with a bloodstained axe in her
hand. As the appellant was  attempting to run away from the scene of crime, he
instructed his  wife Balobai PW-2 to stop her and snatch the bloodstained axe
from her. He had also stated, that, there were bloodstains on the  clothes of
the appellant as well. Balobai PW-2 in her statement  before the police had
stated, on the date of the incident they were  sitting in the house and on
hearing the cries of her daughter  Sumitra PW-4, she came out of the house and
saw appellant's son  was lying dead and she saw the appellant standing near the
dead  body with the wooden part of the axe in her hand and the metal  part of
the axe on the floor. She had also stated, that, when the  appellant started
running away from the place, on instructions from  her husband, she caught hold
of appellant and locked her inside the  house.

 5) After recording the report P-1, the Station House Officer,  Sitapur, left
for the scene of occurrence and after giving notice to  the Panchas, he had
prepared Panchanama of the dead body of  Kannilal. He had taken into his
possession the blood stained axe  3

      on production by Heera PW-1 and also blood stained saree of the  accused.
He had also taken into possession the blood stained soil  and plain soil from
the place of occurrence. The investigating  officer had also prepared the site
plan. Thereafter, the dead body  of deceased Kannilal was sent to the hospital
situated at Sitapur for  post mortem examination. The post mortem was carried
out by Dr.  K.K Datta PW-8, who in his detailed report had stated that the axe
wound on the left side of the head of the deceased was sufficient to  cause the
death. The blood stained articles were sent for  examination to the Forensic
Science Laboratory and, according to  the report, blood was found on the saree
of the accused and the  weapon of offence - axe. After completion of the
investigation, a  charge sheet was filed against the appellant in the court of
Judicial  Magistrate, First Class, Ambikapur, who in turn committed the  case to
the Sessions Judge for trial.

 6) The prosecution in order to establish the charge against the
appellant/accused, examined eight witnesses including Heera  PW-1, his wife
Balobai PW-2 and their daughter Sumitra PW-4,  but were declared hostile and
cross examined by State counsel.  The accused when questioned under Section 313
of the Criminal  4

         Procedure Code, denied all the incriminating circumstances  brought
against her and reiterated about her being innocent.    7) The trial court
raised the following questions for  determination:

                     1) Whether the prosecution was successful in

           establishing that the death was homicidal in nature ?  2) Whether the
prosecution was successful in establishing that the accused with the intention
of causing death, caused the death of Kannilal?

  8) To answer the first question in the affirmative, the trial court  has
placed reliance on the post mortem report of the doctor. To  answer the second
question, the trial court has taken into  consideration the circumstantial
evidence available on record, since  the sole eye witness Sumitra PW-4 has
turned hostile. The trial court  had also taken other factors into consideration
like the recovery of  bloodstained axe and saree of the appellant, for which
there was no  proper explanation on the part of the appellant. Based on these
materials on record, the trial court after holding the appellant guilty  for the
commission of offence under Section 302 of the Indian Penal   5

      Code for committing the murder of her son Kannilal has sentenced her  to
undergo imprisonment for life.

 9) Since the appeal filed against the judgment and order of the  trial court is
dismissed by the High Court, the accused is in appeal  before us.

 10) We have heard amicus curiae for the appellant and the learned  counsel for
the State. The learned amicus-curiae submitted that the  evidence on record does
not establish the case of homicide and that at  any rate the chain of
circumstances is not so complete as to lead to the  hypothesis of guilt of the
accused.

 11) It has been consistently laid down by this Court, that, 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 to be incompatible
with the innocence of the accused or 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. [See  State of U.P. vs. Satish, (2005) 3 SCC 114].

                                                                            6

 12) In Joseph vs. State of Kerala, [(2000) 5 SCC 197], the court has  explained
under what circumstances conviction can be based purely  on circumstantial
evidence. It is observed, that, "it is often said that  though witnesses
may lie, circumstances will not, but at the same time  it must cautiously be
scrutinized to see that the incriminating  circumstances are such as to lead
only to a hypothesis of guilt and  reasonably exclude every possibility of
innocence of the accused.  There can also be no hard and fast rule as to the
appreciation of  evidence in a case and being always an exercise pertaining to
arriving  at a finding of fact the same has to be in the manner necessitated or
warranted by the peculiar facts and circumstances of each case. The  whole
effort and endeavor in the case should be to find out whether  the crime was
committed by the accused and the circumstances  proved form themselves into a
complete chain unerringly pointing to  the guilt of the accused."

 13) This court in the case of Padala Veera Reddy v. State of Andhra  Pradesh,
(AIR 1990 SC 79), has observed that when a case rests on  circumstantial
evidence, the following tests must be satisfied:     7

         (i) The circumstances from which an inference of guilt is  sought to be
drawn, must be cogently and firmly established;  (ii) those circumstances should
be of a definite tendency  unerringly pointing towards the guilt of the accused;
(iii)the circumstances, taken cumulatively, should form a  chain so complete
that there is no escape from the  conclusion that within all human probability
the crime was  committed by the accused and none else; and

        (iv)the circumstantial evidence in order to sustain conviction  must be
complete and incapable of explanation of any other  hypothesis than that of the
guilt of the accused and such  evidence should not only be consistent with the
guilt of the  accused but should be in consistent with this innocence.   14) In
C. Chenga Reddy and others v. State of Andhra Pradesh,  (AIR 1996 SC 3390), this
Court has held that:-     "In a case based on circumstantial evidence, the
settled law is that the circumstances from which the conclusion of guilt is
drawn should be fully proved and such circumstances must be conclusive in

             nature. Moreover, all the circumstances should be  8

              complete and there should be no gap left in the chain of evidence.
Further, the proved circumstances must be consistent only with the hypothesis of
the guilt of the accused and totally inconsistent with his

             innocence."

 15) In State of U.P. vs. Ashok Kumar Srivastava, [(1992) 2 SCC  86], it was
pointed out that great care must be taken in evaluating  circumstantial evidence
and if the evidence relied on is reasonably  capable of two inferences, the one
in favour of the accused must be  accepted. It was also pointed out that the
circumstances relied upon  must be found to have been fully established and the
cumulative effect  of all the facts so established must be consistent only with
the  hypothesis of the guilt.

 16) The principles that would emerge from these decisions is that  conviction
can be based solely on circumstantial evidence, but it  should be tested on the
touchstone of law relating to circumstantial  evidence laid down by this Court.

 17) Keeping in view the settled legal principle, we have re-  appreciated the
evidence on record. It is true that this case is not of  direct evidence of
committing murder of deceased Kannilal by the  accused/appellant, who is none
other than the mother of the deceased,  9

 but is based on circumstantial evidence and the circumstances brought  on
record by the prosecution are of two categories: That the accused  was seen at
the place of occurrence holding blood stained axe in her  hand near the dead
body of the deceased Kannilal and she also tried to  run away from the place of
occurrence; that the axe which was  snatched from the accused by Balobai and the
saree of the accused  were found stained with the blood. To prove the first
circumstance,  the prosecution has examined Heera PW-1, Balobai PW-2 and
Sumitra PW-4. PW-1 has stated that on the fateful day when he  returned from the
forest at about 1.00 P.M., he heard the cries of  Sumitra and came out of the
house, went towards the court yard of  Naihar Sai and saw the dead body of
Kannilal in the court yard.  Accused was standing there holding axe in her hand
and he lodged the  report, P-1. This witness has been declared hostile by the
prosecution.  The prosecution was allowed to cross examine this witness, on
which  he has stated that the portion `A' to `A' of the report P-3 shows that
the girls were crying that the aunt has murdered Kannilal. The accused  was
running away with the axe and the axe was snatched from her and  she was tied,
all this was informed by him while lodging the report, P-

3. He had also stated in the report P-3, that the axe was smeared with    10

 blood and hair and accused's garments were also stained with blood.  In the
cross-examination, he has stated that the place of occurrence  was the house of
Naihar Sai who is his brother. His wife Balobai was  scolding Satni (accused)
and on their remonstrations, Satni (accused)  tried to run away, but, before
that the accused was sitting by the side  of her son Kannilal (deceased). The
above evidence of Heera PW-1 is  corroborated by the evidence of Balobai PW-2
and Sumitra PW-4. In  the cross-examination of these witnesses, the defence has
not been  able to elicit any circumstance which shows that the accused was not
present when Heera PW-1 and Balobai PW-2 went to the scene of  occurrence and,
therefore, the presence of the accused at the place of  occurrence near the dead
body of her son Kannilal holding blood  stained axe in her hand is established.
It is also established from the  evidence of these witnesses that the accused
tried to run away from  the place of occurrence and she was caught by Balobai
PW-2. These  witnesses are closely related to the appellant. From their
deposition, a  clear and consistent picture emerges that when they gathered at
the  courtyard being alarmed by the cries of Sumitra (daughter of Heera)  and
Anita (daughter of the appellant), they saw that the appellant was  standing
with a bloodstained axe near the body of her son, Kannilal.    11

   She also tried to run away, and Balobai restrained her and seized the  axe
from her possession. The axe as well as the saree of the appellant  was blood
stained according to the witnesses. There are no inherent  contradictions in the
testimony of these witnesses. The defence has  been unable to dispel the chain
of events which emerge from the  testimony of these witnesses.

 18) Next comes the second circumstance. The blood stained axe  and the blood
stained saree of the accused was taken into possession  by the investigating
officer as has been recorded in the seizure memo.  They were sent to Forensic
Science Laboratory for examination and  the report received mentions that both
the articles were found blood  stained. Therefore, it is proved beyond
reasonable doubt that the  accused was standing with the blood stained axe near
the dead body of  the deceased Kannilal.

 19) The third circumstance is the post mortem report prepared by  Dr. K.K
Datta, which revealed the following wounds on the body of  the deceased:

           i. One incised wound measuring 12 X 1.5 cm till mandible bone deep in
the cheek.

  12

             ii. Incised wound measuring 10 X 1.5 cm on left side behind the
head, from which the brain was visible.

           iii. Incised wound 6 X 1 cm deep till bone, on left side of the neck,
deep till bone.

           iv. Incised wound 7.5 X 1.5 cm deep till vertebrae.   According to
Dr. Datta, wound No.2 was life endangering and  there is no doubt this was
caused by the axe which was recovered  from the hands of the accused. We find
that 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 points towards the guilt of the appellant. The picture
emerging has also not been refuted satisfactorily by the defence.   20) The
learned Amicus Curiae appearing for the appellant submits  that the appellant is
the mother of the deceased child and it is not  possible for a mother to
possibly kill her own child. She further  submits that because of the illiteracy
and ignorance of the appellant,  she has been falsely implicated for the death
of her child.   21) Motherhood is one of the most precious gifts endowed upon
mankind and there is no relationship more pristine and pure than that  13

 of a mother and her child. No mother in normal circumstances can  tolerate even
a scratch on the body of her child. Basic instinct of a  mother is well
explained by a well known author Washington Irving  in one of his books, wherein
he has said, that, "a father may turn his  back on his child; brothers and
sisters may become inveterate  enemies; husbands may desert their wives, and
wives their husbands.  But a mother's love endures through all; in good repute;
in bad repute,  in the face of the world's condemnation, a mother still loves
on, and  still hopes that her child may turn from his evil ways, and repent;
still  she remembers the infant smiles that once filled her bosom with  rupture,
the merry laugh, the joyful shout of his childhood, the  opening promise of his
youth; and she can never be brought to think  him an unworthy." In the
present case, the appellant was found  standing near the dead body of her son
with a bloodstained axe in her  hand. The normal reaction for any mother would
have been to go  hysterical and clutch the body of her son. But, what is the
reaction of a  mother in the present case, as stated by PW-1 and PW-2 in their
evidence, who came near the scene of occurrence on hearing the cries  of Anita
and Sumitra, that the accused tried to flee away from the  scene of the crime
before being restrained. This kind of reaction and    14

       lack of remorse would not have been forthcoming had she been  innocent.
This unusual reaction to the death of her son who was aged  4 at the time of his
death, in no uncertain terms point towards her  involvement in the crime. In our
view, this is an unusual case and  therefore the plea that a mother is not
capable of killing her own son,  in the absence of any evidence to the contrary
cannot be accepted.  Apart from this, at the time of questioning under Section
313 Cr.P.C.,  the appellant instead of making at least an attempt to explain or
clarify  the incriminating circumstances inculpating her and connecting her
with the crime by her total denial of everything when those  circumstances were
brought to her notice by the Sessions Court, she  not only lost the opportunity
but stood self condemned.   22) There is also no question of falsely implicating
the appellant.  The witnesses are her close relatives. Heera PW-1 being the
brother-  in-law of the appellant and Balobai PW-2 being the sister-in-law of
the appellant, had no enmity nor animosity against the appellant.  With regard
to the issue of Sumitra PW-4, being declared a hostile  witness by the
prosecution and the contradictions in her testimony, it  needs to be kept in
mind that the witness is a 16 year old girl, with an  impressionable mind. It is
very likely that she was shocked beyond  15

         belief at the site of the dead body and it is not possible to
comprehend  how she would have reacted. Different people react differently to
crisis situations, so it is very much possible that with the passage of  time
between the occurrence of the crime and recording of her  testimony, her memory
of the incident would have blurred. That by  itself is not enough to set aside
the conclusion reached at by the courts  below.

  23) For all the reasons stated supra, we have no hesitation to agree  with the
findings of the Division Bench of the High Court  holding the appellant guilty
of the offence under Section 302 I.P.C.  Accordingly, the appeal fails and it is
dismissed.    .................................J.

                                                 [ P. SATHASIVAM ]

  .................................J.

                                                  [ H.L. DATTU ]

New Delhi,

January 29, 2010.

   16

 17