Full Judgment Text
2025 INSC 987
REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO(S). 2861 OF 2025
SHANTI DEVI ….APPELLANT(S)
VERSUS
STATE OF HARYANA ….RESPONDENT(S)
J U D G M E N T
Mehta, J.
1. The accused-appellant Shanti Devi, Rajbir
(accused No. 2) and Veena (accused No.3) faced trial
1
in the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Hisar for
the offences punishable under Section 302 read
2
with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and
Section 201 read with Section 34 IPC.
Signature Not Verified
Digitally signed by
babita pandey
Date: 2025.08.14
17:41:08 IST
Reason:
1 Hereinafter, referred to as the ‘trial Court’.
2 Hereinafter, referred to as the ‘IPC’.
1
vide
2. The learned trial Court judgment dated
th
14 January, 2003, held all the three accused guilty
of the aforesaid charges and vide sentencing order
th
dated 16 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 Rajbir
(accused No.2) preferred CRA-D-178-DB of 2003
3
before the High Court of Punjab and Haryana for
assailing the judgment of the trial Court. Likewise,
Veena (accused No.3) also preferred an appeal for
assailing her conviction. However, Veena (accused
No.3) expired and hence her appeal abated. The
learned Division Bench of the High Court rejected
the appeals preferred by the accused-appellant and
th
Rajbir (accused No.2) vide judgment dated 24 May,
3 Hereinafter, referred to as ‘High Court.’
2
CRL. APPEAL NO(S). 2861/2025
4
2024, which is assailed by the accused-appellant
Shanti Devi in this appeal by special leave.
4. The prosecution story, in a nutshell, is that the
Police Post, HTM, Hisar was informed by K.S.
Sardana (PW-1), Junior Engineer from Water Works,
rd
Mahabir Colony, Hisar in the evening of 23
December, 1997, that a human dead body concealed
in a gunny bag was lying in the water works tank.
On receiving this information, ASI Shish Ram, along
with other police officials reached the location and
the bag was taken out of the water tank. The body
was removed from the gunny bag and was placed
outside. Several persons gathered there. One Har
5
Nath (PW-11) came around and identified the dead
body to be that of his son Balwant (the deceased).
6
He gave a complaint to the police officials on the
7
basis whereof, FIR came to be registered at Police
Station City Hisar. The gist of allegations as set out
in the complaint of Har Nath (PW-11) are extracted
below.
4
Hereinafter, referred to as ‘impugned judgment’.
5
Hereinafter, referred to as ‘informant.’
6 Exhibit P.A.
7 FIR No. 1307 of 1997; Exhibit P.C.
3
CRL. APPEAL NO(S). 2861/2025
5. Har Nath (PW-11) had five sons. His second
eldest son was Balwant (deceased), who had
constructed one house, in Gagandeep Colony on
Balsamand Road, Hisar and another house in Dhani
Badwali near Hanuman Mandir at Hisar. Balwant
(deceased) resided with his family in the house at
Gagandeep Colony. Accused-appellant Shanti Devi,
widow of Dilip Dhanky was holding illegal
possession of the inner room of the house of
Balwant (deceased) at Dhani Badwali, whereas the
outer room had been retained by Balwant (deceased)
for his own occupation. Many times, he would stay
in the said room during night. Balwant (deceased)
was involved in an illicit relationship with Veena
(accused No.3), wife of Ram Chander who was also
on visiting terms with accused-appellant Shanti
rd
Devi. On 23 December, 1997, in the morning,
Savitri, wife of Balwant (deceased), approached the
informant (PW-11) and told that her husband
th
Balwant (deceased), had left on Saturday, 20
December, 1997, for Hisar city and thereafter, he did
not return home. The informant (PW-11) started a
search for Balwant (deceased), in the city and made
4
CRL. APPEAL NO(S). 2861/2025
inquiries from his friends but his whereabouts could
not be ascertained. During this process, he reached
the water works tank, where he learned about the
recovery of a dead body and identified it as that of
his son Balwant (deceased). The body bore multiple
injuries inflicted by sharp-edged weapons. The
informant (PW-11) suspected that accused-appellant
Shanti Devi, her son Rajbir (accused No.2), who are
in illegal occupation of the house owned by Balwant
(deceased) together with Veena (accused No.3) and
some unknown persons had murdered his son
Balwant (deceased) because he wanted to get the
house vacated due to which the accused bore a
grudge against him.
8
6. After registration of the FIR, inquest report
was prepared and the dead body of Balwant
(deceased) was subjected to autopsy at the hands of
a team of Doctors who issued the post mortem
9
report , taking note of 13 incised wounds and few
abrasions on the dead body of Balwant (deceased).
The cause of death was opined to be fracture of
frontal bone leading to intra-cerebral hemorrhage
8 Exhibit PH/2.
9 Exhibit P.J.
5
CRL. APPEAL NO(S). 2861/2025
which caused shock and hemorrhage. All injuries
were stated to be ante-mortem and sufficient to
cause death in the ordinary course of nature. The
time gap between death and post mortem was
opined to be 2 to 5 days.
7. The prosecution claims that Veena (accused
No.3) was arrested, and she suffered a disclosure
10
statement to the effect that she, along with
accused-appellant Shanti Devi and Rajbir (accused
No.2) had committed the murder of Balwant
(deceased). Veena (accused No.3) caused injuries to
Balwant (deceased) with an axe ( Kulhari), whereas
accused-appellant Shanti Devi had inflicted injuries
with a Bugda. Rajbir (accused No.2) had caught
hold of Balwant (deceased) when he was being
assaulted. Initially, the dead body was buried in the
kitchen of the house taken on rent by accused-
appellant Shanti Devi and later the same was
stuffed in a gunny bag and discarded in the water
works tank.
8. The accused-appellant Shanti Devi allegedly
made an extra-judicial confession in the presence of
10 Exhibit P.N.
6
CRL. APPEAL NO(S). 2861/2025
Nathu Ram, who produced the accused-appellant
Shanti Devi before the police and accordingly she
was arrested. The prosecution alleges that upon
interrogation, the accused-appellant Shanti Devi
11
suffered a disclosure statement and in furtherance
12
thereof, a blood-stained bed sheet ( Chaddar ) was
recovered from the kitchen of the house taken on
rent by accused-appellant Shanti Devi and the
13
Bugda allegedly used in the incident was recovered
from the sewerage. The prosecution also placed
reliance on the evidence of Krishan @ Kuli (PW-15)
th
who claimed that on 20 December, 1997, while he
was passing from near the house of accused-
appellant Shanti Devi, he saw Veena (accused No.3),
Rajbir (accused No.2) and accused-appellant Shanti
Devi quarrelling with Balwant (deceased). He
attempted to intervene and stop the quarrel, but his
efforts went in vain, whereupon he left the place. A
few days later, he came to know that Balwant
(deceased) had been murdered. After 15 to 16 days
of the occurrence, Rajbir (accused No.2) s/o
accused-appellant Shanti Devi approached him and
11
Exhibit P.S.
12 Exhibit P20.
13 Exhibit P17.
7
CRL. APPEAL NO(S). 2861/2025
confessed to the crime and requested to produce
him before the police. Upon this, the witness (PW-
15) produced Rajbir (accused No.2) before the police.
Based on these pieces of circumstantial evidence,
i.e., last seen theory [based on the evidence of
Krishan @ Kuli (PW-15)], motive as alleged by the
informant (PW-11), the allegedly incriminating
recoveries and the extra-judicial confessions, the
investigating officer (PW-18) proceeded to file a
report under Section 173(2) of the Code of Criminal
14
Procedure, 1973 against all the three accused
persons. The case was committed to the trial Court
who conducted trial and convicted all the accused
as above.
9. The High Court rejected the appeal preferred
by the accused-appellant Shanti Devi by judgment
th
dated 24 May, 2024, which is assailed in this
appeal by special leave.
10. We have heard and considered the
submissions advanced by learned counsel for the
parties and have meticulously gone through the
original record.
14 Hereinafter, referred to as the “CrPC”.
8
CRL. APPEAL NO(S). 2861/2025
11. Indisputably, the case of the prosecution is
based totally on circumstantial evidence. The law is
well settled that in cases based purely on
circumstantial evidence, the onus lies upon the
prosecution to prove the chain of incriminating
circumstances beyond all manner of doubt. The five
golden principles to be followed in a case based on
circumstantial evidence formulated by this Court in
the celebrated case of
Sharad Birdhichand Sarda
15
are reproduced
v. State of Maharashtra,
hereinbelow:-
“153. A close analysis of this decision would
show that the following conditions must be
fulfilled before a case against an accused can be
said to be fully established:
(1) the circumstances from which the
conclusion of guilt is to be drawn should be
fully established.
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 [(1973) 2
SCC 793] where the observations were made:
15 (1984) 4 SCC 116.
9
CRL. APPEAL NO(S). 2861/2025
“Certainly, it is a primary principle that
the accused must be and not merely
may be guilty before a court can convict
and the mental distance between ‘may
be’ and ‘must be’ is long and divides
vague conjectures from sure
conclusions.”
(2) the facts so established should be
consistent only with the hypothesis of the
guilt of the accused, that is to say, they
should not be explainable on any other
hypothesis except that the accused is guilty,
(3) the circumstances should be of a
conclusive nature and tendency,
(4) they should exclude every possible
hypothesis except the one to be proved, and
(5) there must be a chain of evidence so
complete as not to leave any reasonable
ground for the conclusion consistent with
the innocence of the accused and must show
that in all human probability the act must
”
have been done by the accused.
(Emphasis Supplied)
12. Keeping in view the above principles, we shall
now proceed to analyse and evaluate the evidence
led by the prosecution.
13. The informant (PW-11) came out with a
categoric theory regarding motive based on an
allegation that the accused-appellant Shanti Devi
was illegally occupying the house of Balwant
10
CRL. APPEAL NO(S). 2861/2025
(deceased) located at Dhani Badwali along with her
son, Rajbir (accused No.2) and they were refusing to
vacate the same, which as per the witness (PW-11)
constituted the motive to commit the offence. An
additional theory of motive has been propounded
with the allegation that Balwant (deceased) was
involved in an illicit affair with Veena (accused No.3),
which also could have been the cause of the murder.
14. Before we discuss the evidence of the
informant (PW-11), we may note that Balwant
(deceased) along with his wife Savitri was admittedly
living in a separate house and as per the version of
the informant (PW-11), his interaction with Balwant
(deceased) was minimal and spaced with significant
intervals. Thus, the best person to state about
inimical relations of Balwant (deceased) with the
accused-appellant Shanti Devi or his extra marital
affair with Veena (accused No.3) would be his wife
Savitri, who was surprisingly not examined as a
witness in this case.
15. We shall now proceed to analyze the testimony
of the informant (PW-11) to find out if the theory of
11
CRL. APPEAL NO(S). 2861/2025
motive was actually substantiated by his evidence.
On a perusal of the deposition of the informant (PW-
11), we find that he did not utter a single word in
his examination-in-chief regarding the existence of
any extra marital affair between his son Balwant
(deceased) and Veena (accused No.3). The only
aspersion cast by the witness (PW-11) against the
accused-appellant Shanti Devi was that she had
forcibly occupied one room of the house owned by
Balwant. However, the said version is contradicted
by the witness himself who also stated that the
room which accused-appellant Shanti Devi was
occupying, was given to her on rent. These two
versions i.e., forcible occupation and possession as a
tenant are diametrically opposite and cannot be
reconciled.
16. In cross-examination, the witness (PW-11)
admitted that Balwant (deceased) met him 10 to 12
days prior to his death. He could not say where
Balwant was staying in the intervening period. He
had visited the house of Balwant (deceased), where
accused-appellant Shanti Devi was a tenant, four to
five days prior to the incident. The witness (PW-11)
12
CRL. APPEAL NO(S). 2861/2025
was put pertinent suggestions in cross-examination
regarding execution of rent note qua the portion of
the house given on rent to accused-appellant Shanti
Devi, to which he feigned ignorance. He further
claimed that he had seen Veena (accused No.3) in
the house of Balwant (deceased), 7 days prior to his
death. In the same breath, he admitted that Veena
(accused No.3) was not previously known to him.
He also admitted that he had talked to Mahavir,
Nathu and various other persons in connection with
the search of his son Balwant (deceased). He also
contacted certain women.
17. From the tenor of evidence of this witness, we
can safely conclude that he has given contradictory
version regarding the manner in which accused-
appellant Shanti Devi was occupying the house of
Balwant (deceased). The indication given by the
witness regarding contacting certain women in
connection with the search for Balwant (deceased)
gives rise to a suspicion regarding the promiscuous
conduct of the deceased. Even though Veena
(accused No.3) was not previously known to the
witness (PW-11) in spite thereof, her name was
13
CRL. APPEAL NO(S). 2861/2025
introduced in the FIR on the purported allegation of
extra marital affairs with Balwant. Thus, from the
very inception, the informant (PW-11) has been
indulging in making patently false aspersions so as
to substantiate the theory of motive.
18. The tenor of the allegations in the FIR shows
that accused-appellant Shanti Devi was illegally
occupying the inner room in the house of Balwant
(deceased) whereas the informant (PW-11) in his
evidence categorically stated that she was staying as
a tenant and that Balwant (deceased) was trying to
evict her from the house. The witness (PW-11) also
stated that Balwant (deceased) often used to stay in
the outer room of the same house when he got late
in the night. The witness (PW-11) also admitted
that Balwant (deceased) was residing separately
from him for the last 7 to 8 years and had been
implicated in a case of murder earlier.
19. Apparently, the theory of enmity falls flat to the
ground when we consider that Balwant (deceased)
frequently stayed over in night time in the same
house where the accused-appellant Shanti Devi
14
CRL. APPEAL NO(S). 2861/2025
used to stay. Had there been any acrimony in the
relationship, Balwant (deceased) would not have
taken the risk of staying in the very same house
where the family inimical to him was staying.
Hence, we are not convinced with the theory of
motive attributed by the prosecution to the accused-
appellant Shanti Devi and her son, Rajbir (accused
No.2). The informant’s version gives rise to a
suspicion that Balwant (deceased) might have been
involved in affairs with many women. It is a fact
that he had been arraigned as an accused in a
murder case. Collectively taken, these facts as
appearing in the testimony of PW-11 persuade us to
raise an inference that more than one person could
be bearing animosity against Balwant (deceased)
and imputing the accused-appellant Shanti Devi
and Rajbir (accused No.2), the alleged motive is
neither justified nor substantiated by evidence.
Hence, the theory of motive is not established by
cogent evidence.
20. The next in the chain of incriminating
circumstances is the theory of extra-judicial
confession. In this regard, Indraj (PW-12) testified
15
CRL. APPEAL NO(S). 2861/2025
th
that on 25 December, 1997, Veena (accused No.3)
was interrogated by police in the flower market. She
gave a confessional statement admitting that she
was on visiting terms with accused-appellant Shanti
th
Devi; On 20 December, 1997, accused-appellant
Shanti Devi was present in the house of Veena
(accused No.3); Balwant (deceased) was sleeping in
the house of accused-appellant Shanti Devi; all the
accused, i.e., Shanti, Veena and Rajbir conspired to
commit the murder of Balwant (deceased); Veena
(accused No.3) armed with an axe (Kulhari) and
assaulted Balwant (deceased) with the said weapon
and accused-appellant Shanti Devi had assaulted
Balwant (deceased) with a Bugda . At that point of
time, Rajbir (accused No.2) had caught hold of
Balwant (deceased). The witness (PW-12) then went
on to narrate about the disclosure statements made
by the accused persons regarding the concealment
of the weapons. From the deposition of the witness
in his examination-in-chief, it becomes clear that
whatever confession this witness attributes to Veena
(accused No.3) was made in the presence of the
police officials and hence, the same would be hit by
16
CRL. APPEAL NO(S). 2861/2025
Sections 25 and 26 of the Indian Evidence Act,
16
1872 .
21. We are of the firm opinion that the trial Court
fell into grave error in even allowing the said
inculpatory version of Veena (accused No.3) to be
reproduced in the testimony of the said witness.
Law is well-settled that confessional statement of an
accused recorded in presence of a police officer
cannot be admitted in evidence, except to the extent
as provided under Section 27 of the Evidence Act
and that too, when such disclosure leads to the
discovery of incriminating fact/s. The witness (PW-
12) admitted in his examination-in-chief that all the
memos were signed by Veena (accused No.3) after
the recovery of the axe. This admission by the
witness completely demolishes the theory of the
investigating officer (PW-18) that the disclosure
statements were recorded first and the recoveries
were made as a consequence thereof. It seems that
all the documents including the disclosure
statements and the recovery memos were prepared
16 Hereinafter, referred to as “Evidence Act”.
17
CRL. APPEAL NO(S). 2861/2025
at one go after the recoveries had been allegedly
effected.
22. The next important witness whose evidence
needs to be referred to is of Bhagatu (PW-14) who
took out the Bugda and the axe from the sewerage.
The entire version of this witness in the
examination-in-chief reads as below:-
“On 27.12.97 police had summoned me. I had
gone Subji Mandi, Hisar and on the direction of
police I recovered Bugda. Just ahead of this
place, l also recovered on the direction of police,
Kulhari and quilt from the sewerage.”
23. On a perusal of the above statement, it
becomes apparent that the witness (PW-14) did not
acknowledge the presence of any female (accused) in
the company of the police officials when he took out
the axe and the Bugda from the sewerage. Had
there been an iota of truth in the prosecution story,
the witness (PW-14) who was presumably engaged
to make a search in the sewerage, would not have
missed out noticing the presence of the women
accused on whose purported disclosures these
recoveries were affected.
18
CRL. APPEAL NO(S). 2861/2025
24. Hence, the recoveries of the weapons allegedly
effected by the investigating officer (PW-18) pursuant
to the alleged disclosure statements made by the
accused fall under a grave cloud of doubt and
cannot be believed.
25. The witness Krishan @ Kuli (PW-15) was
examined by the prosecution for proving the
purported theory of last seen together and extra-
th
judicial confession. He stated that on 20 December,
1997, he was going to the Badwali Dhani at Hisar.
At about 08:00 pm, while he was passing from near
the house of accused-appellant Shanti Devi, he saw
her quarrelling with Balwant (deceased). He then
improved his version and said that accused-
appellant Shanti Devi, her son Rajbir (accused no.2)
and Veena (accused No.3) were quarrelling with
Balwant (deceased). The witness (PW-15) tried to
intervene but to no avail. He then left that place.
After a few days, he came to know that Balwant
(deceased) had been murdered. The witness (PW-15)
stated that after about 15 to 16 days from the
occurrence, the accused-appellant Shanti Devi’s
son, Rajbir (accused No.2) approached him and
19
CRL. APPEAL NO(S). 2861/2025
requested that he should be produced before the
police. At that time, Rajbir (accused No.2) confessed
before the witness (PW-15) that he, along with
accused-appellant Shanti Devi and Veena (accused
No.3) had murdered Balwant (deceased). The
accused gave out details of the manner of
committing the murder and disposal of the body as
part of the so-called extra-judicial confession.
26. In cross-examination, the witness (PW-15)
admitted that Balwant (deceased) was previously
known to him because he was a taxi driver. The
witness (PW-15) admitted that he was not on
visiting terms with Balwant (deceased). On the
fateful day, he was going to the house of a gardener
named Tony who used to live in the same locality.
He had never visited the house of accused-appellant
Shanti Devi before. He had neither seen Veena
(accused No.3) in the house of accused-appellant
Shanti Devi nor was she known to him from earlier.
He could not state about the cause of the quarrel.
He also admitted that before the disclosure was
made by Rajbir (accused No.2), he did not know
about the death of Balwant (deceased). He also
20
CRL. APPEAL NO(S). 2861/2025
admitted that he had been imprisoned earlier in a
double murder case wherein he had been sentenced
to life imprisonment.
27. From the tenor of the evidence of the witness
(PW-15), we find that he is a chance witness who
has been planted by the prosecution to lend succor
to the flimsy story portrayed to prove the charges.
There is no plausible reason whatsoever as to why
the witness (PW-15) would have gone to the locality
where accused-appellant Shanti Devi was living on
th
the particular day i.e., 20 December, 1997.
Furthermore, the theory put-forth by the witness
(PW-15) that out of the blue, Rajbir (accused No.2)
approached him after about 15 to 16 days of the
incident and requested him to assist his production
before the police and made a detailed confession is
absolutely unworthy of credence. Neither there was
any such affinity between the witness (PW-15) and
Rajbir (accused No.2) nor was the witness (PW-15)
wielding such influence that Rajbir (accused No.2)
would make a confession before him and ask for his
assistance to be produced before the police. There is
a significant delay in the recording of statement of
21
CRL. APPEAL NO(S). 2861/2025
the witness (PW-15) by the investigating officer (PW-
th
18), which was recorded on 16 January, 1998. All
these facts taken cumulatively make the evidence of
PW-15 totally unreliable and his testimony deserves
to be discarded.
28. Another person named Shamsher Singh (PW-
17) was examined by the prosecution who stated
that in the month of November or December, 1997,
Veena (accused No.3) came to his house and
disclosed that she was living with Rajbir (accused
No.2) in the rented house of accused-appellant
Shanti Devi, which was owned by Balwant
(deceased) and that she along with Rajbir (accused
No.2) and accused-appellant Shanti Devi had
murdered Balwant (deceased). She requested the
witness (PW-17) to produce her before the police.
29. The law on the evidentiary value of extra-
judicial confessions is well settled that such a
confession has very weak evidentiary value and
should be accepted with great care and caution.
17
This court in Sahadevan v. State of Tamil Nadu
undertook a thorough examination of the
17 (2012) 6 SCC 403
22
CRL. APPEAL NO(S). 2861/2025
jurisprudence on the evidentiary value of extra-
judicial confessions and laid down certain guiding
principles, which are reproduced hereinbelow:-
“22. Upon a proper analysis of the above-referred
judgments of this Court, it will be appropriate to
state the principles which would make an extra-
judicial confession an admissible piece of evidence
capable of forming the basis of conviction of an
accused. These precepts would guide the judicial
mind while dealing with the veracity of cases
where the prosecution heavily relies upon an
extra-judicial confession alleged to have been
made by the accused.
The Principles
i) The extra-judicial confession is a weak
evidence by itself. It has to be examined by the
court with greater care and caution.
ii) It should be made voluntarily and should be
truthful.
iii) It should inspire confidence.
iv) An extra-judicial confession attains greater
credibility and evidentiary value, if it is
supported by a chain of cogent circumstances
and is further corroborated by other
prosecution evidence.
v) For an extra-judicial confession to be the
basis of conviction, it should not suffer from
any material discrepancies and inherent
improbabilities.
vi) Such statement essentially has to be proved
like any other fact and in accordance with law .”
23
CRL. APPEAL NO(S). 2861/2025
(Emphasis Supplied)
30. The coincidental similarities in the prosecution
case that accused-appellant Shanti Devi randomly
approached Nathu Ram and made the extra-judicial
confession as was made by her son Rajbir (accused
No.2) before Krishan @ Kuli (PW-15) and Veena
(accused No.3) before Shamsher Singh (PW-17)
convinces us that the theory of extra-judicial
confessions is nothing but a cock and bull story
created by the police, just in order to lend credence
to the flimsy web built up by them for solving the
blind murder of Balwant (deceased).
31. The fact that Krishan @ Kuli (PW-15) did not
know the name of Veena (accused No.3) from before
and yet he tried to include her name in the array of
assailants convinces us regarding the blatant falsity
being spoken by the witness (PW-15). The sheer
coincidence that all the three accused randomly
approached totally unconnected persons i.e., Nathu
Ram, Krishan @ Kuli (PW-15) and Shamsher Singh
(PW-17) to make the extra-judicial confessions and
then asked for their assistance to be produced
before the police reinforces our conviction that both
24
CRL. APPEAL NO(S). 2861/2025
the witnesses who deposed about the extra-judicial
confessions are gotten up witnesses. None of these
witnesses to the extra-judicial confessions had any
prior connection with the accused nor did they have
any such status which could have inspired or
compelled the accused to take their assistance for
production before the police. Furthermore, Nathu
Ram was not even examined by the prosecution.
Thus, the theory of extra-judicial confession is
palpably false and cannot be accepted by any stretch
of imagination.
32. The last link of circumstantial evidence relied
upon by the prosecution was in the form of
recoveries of the weapons and other alleged
incriminating articles, viz, chaddar, soil, etc. As per
the prosecution case, these incriminating articles
were recovered at the instance of the accused-
appellant Shanti Devi and the accused Veena
(accused no.3). So far as the recoveries of weapons
are concerned, while discussing the statement of
Bhagatu (PW-14), we have already concluded that
these recoveries are fake and planted and cannot be
relied upon for any purpose whatsoever.
25
CRL. APPEAL NO(S). 2861/2025
33. So far as the other recoveries are concerned,
the same also pale into insignificance when we
18 19
peruse the Forensic Science Laboratory report
th
dated 14 October, 1998 issued by FSL, Madhuban.
The Government scientist upon analysing the
samples, could not arrive at any conclusion
regarding the presence of human blood on any of
the material objects, including the Kulhari and
Bugda. These articles were forwarded to the
serological analyst who also analysed the same and
found human blood only on the Chaddar and the
blanket. However, no opinion was given regarding
grouping of the blood on any of the so-called
incriminating articles.
34. It is interesting to note that the weapons were
not sent for serological examination because no
blood was detected thereupon. Seen in light of the
FSL report, the recoveries allegedly effected at the
instance of the accused-appellant Shanti Devi
cannot be termed to be incriminating as they do not
provide any link with the murder of Balwant.
18 Hereinafter, referred to as the ‘FSL’.
19 Exhibit P.C.C.
26
CRL. APPEAL NO(S). 2861/2025
35. Consequently, we are of the firm opinion that
the prosecution has failed to prove even a single of
these so-called incriminating circumstances so as to
justify the conviction of the accused-appellant for
the charge of murdering Balwant (deceased).
36. The 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. Both the Courts have, despite
the negative FSL report, relied upon the so-called
incriminating recoveries. Manifestly, the reliance
placed by the Courts below on the recoveries is
misplaced and unjustified. Furthermore, the
negative FSL report makes the recoveries
inconsequential.
th
37. Resultantly, the impugned judgment dated 24
May, 2024 rendered by the High Court and the
th
judgment dated 14 January, 2003 passed by the
trial Court do not stand to scrutiny and are hereby
quashed and set aside. The appellant-accused
herein is acquitted of the charges. She is in custody
27
CRL. APPEAL NO(S). 2861/2025
and shall be released forthwith, if not wanted in any
other case.
38. We may, at this stage, note that the appellant-
accused herein as well as Rajbir (accused No.2),
being the son of the appellant-accused were both
provided legal aid counsel in the appeal before the
High Court, manifestly for the reason of their poor
financial status. Rajbir (accused No.2) has not even
preferred an appeal against the judgment of the
High Court. However, while discussing the case of
accused-appellant Shanti Devi, we have found that
the evidence led by the prosecution is not sufficient
and lacks credibility so as to form a complete chain
of incriminating circumstances warranting the
affirmation of the prosecution case. The entire case
of the prosecution having being discarded, the
benefit of this judgment deserves to be extended to
the non-appealing accused Rajbir (accused No.2),
who has unfortunately not preferred an appeal to
assail his conviction. In this regard, we may
gainfully refer to Sahadevan ( supra ), wherein this
Court observed that:-
“ Where the Court finds that the prosecution
evidence suffers from serious contradictions,
28
CRL. APPEAL NO(S). 2861/2025
is unreliable, is ex facie neither cogent nor
true and the prosecution has failed to
discharge the established onus of proving
the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable
doubt, the Court will be well within its
jurisdiction to return the finding of acquittal
and even suo moto extend the benefit to a
non-appealing accused as well, more so,
where the Court even disbelieves the very
occurrence of the crime itself. Of course, the
role attributed to each of the accused and other
attendant circumstances would be relevant
considerations for the Court to apply its
discretion judiciously. There can be varied
reasons for a non-appealing accused in not
approaching the appellate Court. If, for
compelling and inevitable reasons, like lack
of finances, absence of any person to pursue
his remedy and lack of proper assistance in
the jail, an accused is unable to file appeal,
then it would amount to denial of access to
justice to such accused .”
(Emphasis Supplied)
39. Thus, we give the benefit of our conclusions to
Rajbir (accused No.2) as well and also acquit him of
the charges. He shall be released from custody, if not
wanted in any other case.
40. The appeal is allowed accordingly.
29
CRL. APPEAL NO(S). 2861/2025
41. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand
disposed of.
….……………………J.
(MANOJ MISRA)
...…………………….J.
(SANDEEP MEHTA)
NEW DELHI;
AUGUST 06, 2025.
30
CRL. APPEAL NO(S). 2861/2025