During fire, it takes a person lot of courage to get back into house to save somebody, not doing so may be morally wrong but cannot be a circumstance to hold a person guilty of Murder: SC
- 17:30The SC on August 10, 2021 {Parubai vs. The State of Maharashtra} observed 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.
It was also held by the Bench, comprising of Justice A.S. Bopanna and Justice Hemant Gupta that 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. Therefore, it was held that 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.
Further the SC held that 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”. In that backdrop, it was held that a perusal of the judgment passed by the Session’s Court as well as the High Court in the instant case, for its ultimate conclusion has made suspicion the reason for rendering conviction without there being any strong basis. It was held that the suspicion, however strong, cannot take the place of proof.
It was held that 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 was held that 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.
It was held that 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. It was held that the High Court holding the appellant guilty of pouring kerosene around the deceased and her children and setting them on fire since the appellant had failed to explain the reason for eruption of fire in view of such obligation to explain under Section 106 is also not sustainable in the present circumstance. In the instant case, it was held since the other circumstances in the chain are not established, the same cannot be held against the appellant. It was held on the other hand, the case itself is that the fire had erupted at midnight when the appellant and others were sleeping and she come out shouting. It was held that the explanation for the cause of fire by the appellant would have arisen only if there was any other evidence to the effect that the appellant was already awake and was outside even before the fire erupted.
In the result, the judgment dated 12.10.2017 passed by the High Court affirming the conviction and sentence ordered by the Sessions Court were set aside. The appellant Parubai who was on interim bail was set at liberty and her bail bond stood discharged. The appeal was, accordingly, allowed by the SC.