Acquittal Allowed Where Extra‑Judicial Confessions And Circumstantial Chain Were Not Conclusive

A Bench of Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra and Justice Augustine George Masih heard an appeal against a High Court judgment that had affirmed a trial court conviction under Section 302 IPC for the alleged murder of an infant, arising from facts in Himachal Pradesh and challenging the reliance on extra‑judicial confessions and circumstantial evidence.

The Court allowed the appeal, set aside the conviction and life sentence, and acquitted the appellant. The judgment held that extra‑judicial confessions are a weak form of evidence that required careful scrutiny and reliable corroboration and that the circumstantial material did not form an unbroken chain conclusively pointing to guilt. The Court, in its reasoning, observed: “12. …It is a case based upon circumstantial evidence. In case of circumstantial evidence, the onus lies upon the prosecution to prove the complete chain of events which shall undoubtedly point towards the guilt of the accused. Furthermore, in case of circumstantial evidence, where the prosecution relies upon an extra‑judicial confession, the court has to examine the same with a greater degree of care and caution. It is a settled principle of criminal jurisprudence that extra‑judicial confession is a weak piece of evidence. Wherever the Court, upon due appreciation of the entire prosecution evidence, intends to base a conviction on an extra‑judicial confession, it must ensure that the same inspires confidence and is corroborated by other prosecution evidence. If, however, the extra‑judicial confession suffers from material discrepancies or inherent improbabilities and does not appear to be cogent as per the prosecution version, it may be difficult for the court to base a conviction on such a confession. In such circumstances, the court would be fully justified in ruling such evidence out of consideration.” The Court further noted that “the prosecution has failed to establish the guilt of the appellant beyond reasonable doubt.”

Background

The appellant, who had married the complainant as a second wife, was accused of throttling her infant son. The child was found lifeless after the parents and others had been at different places the previous night. A first information report was filed by the husband; an autopsy recorded ligature marks and asphyxia as the cause of death. The prosecution relied on alleged extra‑judicial confessions made to several persons and on recovery of a green dupatta from the appellant during interrogation; forensic testing reportedly showed blood and human skin tissue on the dupatta. The appellant denied the confessions, gave an alternative account that the child was found unresponsive after she slept in the in‑laws’ house, and asserted she had sought medical help.

The trial court convicted and sentenced the appellant to life imprisonment; the High Court affirmed. On appeal, the Supreme Court reviewed settled authorities that extra‑judicial confessions are inherently weak and must be corroborated and re‑stated the five cardinal principles for evaluating circumstantial evidence from Hanumant and Sharad Sarda. The Court found material infirmities: inconsistencies in witness timelines, an unexplained gap between the alleged offence and medical examination, the dupatta was not shown to the post‑mortem doctor, forensic findings were not linked conclusively to the deceased, and essential witnesses (notably a purported witness to the confession) were not examined. The Court also observed the absence of a convincing motive and that the appellant’s conduct in seeking medical aid shortly after the child became unresponsive was inconsistent with the prosecution narrative. Applying the principles governing circumstantial cases and corroboration of extra‑judicial statements, the Court concluded that the prosecution had not established guilt beyond reasonable doubt. The appeal was allowed, conviction and sentence under Section 302 IPC were set aside, the appellant was acquitted, and, since she was on bail, she was discharged from her bail bonds.

Case Details: Case No.: CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 582 OF 2013 Case Title: Neelam Kumari v. The State of Himachal Pradesh Appearances: For the Petitioner(s): Not indicated in the judgment For the Respondent(s): Not indicated in the judgment