REPORTABLE  

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

J U D G M E N T

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