Convictions in Brutal Murder Over Loan Default Are Quashed for Lack of Cogent Circumstantial Chain

A bench of Justices K. V. Viswanathan and K. Vinod Chandran heard an appeal by Nagamma @ Nagarathna and others against the State of Karnataka challenging their convictions under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC for the murder of a police constable. The appeal questioned the Trial Court and High Court findings that relied on circumstantial evidence, extra‑judicial confessions recorded at the police station and a recovery under Section 27 of the Evidence Act.

The Court allowed the criminal appeal and set aside the convictions, holding that the prosecution failed to establish an unbroken chain of circumstantial evidence that would lead exclusively to the guilt of the accused. The judges found the ocular account and other circumstances "sketchy" and the key witnesses "totally unreliable" after many of them turned hostile or gave inconsistent accounts. The Court noted that confessions made to police officers were inadmissible under Sections 25 and 26 of the Evidence Act and that the Section 27 recovery was not proved with sufficient particularity or independent corroboration. The Court, in its reasoning, observed: "Undisputedly, the case is one of circumstantial evidence which is treated as proved only when there is a complete chain of circumstances, comprising cogent and reliable material, providing an unbreakable link, leading only to the culpability of the accused and bringing forth the hypothesis only of guilt and not leading to any reasonable doubt as to the guilt or otherwise of the accused. The motive projected and the crime itself has not at all been proved and there is no circumstance leading to the culpability of the accused. The presence of the dead body in the house of the accused is also under a cloud and in any event, that, with the absence of a proper explanation cannot by itself bring home a conviction." The Court also relied on its prior observation that "there is no general presumption against the owner/tenant of a property with regard to his/her guilt if a dead body with homicidal injuries is found in his/her property" and that mere failure to explain did not by itself establish guilt.

Background The prosecution alleged that the victim, a police driver, had repeatedly demanded repayment of a loan of Rs. 1 lakh taken by the first accused; that the wife of the first accused (A2) lured the deceased to her house late on 10–11 March 2006; and that the deceased was rendered immobile with chilli powder and hacked to death by accused wielding choppers. The Trial Court convicted A2 to A4 under Section 302/34 and acquitted A1 (charged with instigation under Section 109) on the basis of an alibi. The Karnataka High Court affirmed those convictions.

On appeal the appellants argued parity with the acquitted A1 and reliance on precedents such as State of West Bengal v. Vindu Lachmandas Sakhrani and Suraj Pal v. State of U.P. The State relied on the discovery of the dead body at A2’s house, alleged extra‑judicial confessions, proof of motive and the recovery of one chopper at the instance of A4.

The Court reviewed post‑mortem evidence showing multiple ante‑mortem chop wounds and accepted the homicidal nature of death. However, it found major infirmities in the prosecution case: several purported eyewitnesses retracted statements or were declared hostile; accounts of how and when the deceased was summoned were inconsistent; the inquest evidence conflicted as to where it was drawn; and the prosecution’s motive evidence was weak and internally contradictory. The Court held that confessions made inside the police station were barred under Sections 25 and 26 of the Evidence Act and could not be relied upon, and that the Section 27 recovery lacked adequate independent corroboration and specificity to link the weapon to the crime or to particular accused beyond reasonable doubt. Applying precedent, including Santosh v. State (NCT of Delhi) and Shivaji Chintappa Patil v. State of Maharashtra, the Court concluded that the chain of circumstances was not complete and the convictions could not be sustained. The criminal appeal was allowed, the convictions were set aside and the accused were acquitted. The Court directed that if the accused were in custody they be released if not wanted in any other case, and noted that bail bonds of those on bail shall stand cancelled and revoked. Pending applications were disposed of.

Case No.: Criminal Appeal No.425 of 2014 (2025 INSC 1135) Case Title: Nagamma @ Nagarathna & Ors. v. The State of Karnataka Appearances: For the Petitioner(s): Mr. C.B. Gururaj, Advocate For the Respondent(s): Mr. Nishanth Patil, Additional Advocate General