In Brief
The appellant was convicted of murder and arson under Sections 302 and 436 IPC for allegedly setting fire to a house, causing the deaths of her co-wife and two children, while she escaped uninjured. The High Court upheld the conviction based primarily on the circumstance that the appellant had no burn injuries, inferring she must have started the fire and fled. The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, holding that circumstantial evidence must form a complete, unbroken chain pointing conclusively to guilt; suspicion, however strong, cannot substitute for proof. The absence of injury alone, coupled with weak evidence and speculative inferences, was insufficient to convict beyond reasonable doubt. The Court emphasized that when two views are reasonably possible, the benefit of doubt favours the accused.
The lawyer headnote and full judgment text are available to registered users.