NEW DELHI: NEW DELHI: A woman in

was convicted for

of her husband and spent five years behind bars while undergoing life imprisonment. The evidence that sent her to

was that she was last seen with her husband before the mysterious murder and she did not weep at his death.

The Supreme Court, however, came to her rescue and set aside her conviction on Wednesday in the murder case and refused to give credence to the reasoning of trial court and Guwahati high court which had held that her “unnatural conduct” by not crying at the time of her husband’s unnatural death proved her guilt beyond doubt.

The trial court and the HC relied heavily on the last seen theory which established her presence with the deceased at night when he was killed and had held her “unnatural conduct” of not crying proved that she was the killer of her husband. The lower court also noted that she failed to explain the circumstances as to how the death occurred at night.

A bench of Justices R F Nariman and Navin Sinha, however, said that circumstantial evidence did not lead to inescapable conclusion that she had killed her husband and directed her release from custody forthwith.

“The fact that prosecution witness did not notice tears in her eyes, deemed as unnatural conduct by the courts below, cannot be sufficient to draw an adverse inference of guilt against her. The appellant being in a helpless situation may have been stunned into a shock of disbelief by the death of her husband. It is not uncommon human behaviour that on the death of a near relative, or upon witnessing a murderous assault, a person goes into complete silence and stupor showing no reaction or sensibility,” the bench said.

The apex court said there were multiple injuries on the body of the deceased and it could certainly not have been caused by one person and tells an entirely different story by itself that the assailants may have been more than one.

“In our opinion also, if the deceased was of average built, it is difficult to accept, according to normal prudence and human behaviour and capacity, that the appellant being a woman, could have made such severe and repeated assault on the deceased, who was her husband, with a small knife, without any resistance and suffered no injury herself,” the court said.

“Suffice it to observe that in a case of circumstantial evidence the prosecution is required to establish the continuity in the links of the chain of circumstances, so as to lead to the only and inescapable conclusion of the accused being the assailant, inconsistent or incompatible with the possibility of any other hypothesis compatible with the innocence of the accused. Mere invocation of the last seen theory, sans the facts and evidence in a case, will not suffice to shift the onus upon the accused,” it said.

“The possibility that the occurrence may have taken place in some other manner cannot be completely ruled out. The appellant is therefore held entitled to acquittal on the benefit of doubt. We accordingly order her acquittal and release from custody forthwith, unless wanted in any other case,” it said.