Evidence – Extra-judicial confessions – Conviction based upon – When not justified – Appellant was convicted u/s.302, IPC for the murder of her infant son based on alleged extra-judicial confessions made to her husband (PW-1), Ward Member (PW-3), Pradhan (PW-4) and PW-5, and sentenced to life imprisonment – Conviction and sentence affirmed by High Court – Interference with:
Held: Extra-judicial confessions are weak evidence and should be corroborated by other, independent evidence – In the present case, the alleged extra-judicial confessions suffer from serious infirmities and cannot be relied upon – Prosecution has failed to establish any convincing motive for the appellant to commit the murder of her own child – The circumstantial evidence, too, does not form a complete chain conclusively pointing towards the guilt of the appellant – Guilt of the appellant not established beyond reasonable doubt – Conviction and sentence of the appellant u/s.302 set aside – Acquitted. [Paras 11, 22-24] Evidence – Motive – Relevance – Appellant was convicted u/s.302, IPC for the murder of her infant son – Motive not established:
Held: Motive plays a crucial role in establishing the credibility of the prosecution’s case – While a weak or absent motive alone may not be sufficient to acquit an accused if other circumstances form a complete chain pointing unerringly to guilt, it significantly weighs in favour of the accused and creates a reasonable doubt – The suggestion that the appellant killed her child because her husband visited village for the last rites of his recently deceased father defies logic, given that she herself visited the village along with him and their child – Moreover, such an extreme act runs completely contrary to the natural instinct of a mother of an infant child – Furthermore, if the appellant had indeed killed her child, her subsequent conduct is difficult to reconcile with guilt – It is difficult to reconcile that she was cold-blooded enough to strangle her own child but urgently sought medical help for that child shortly thereafter – Prosecution failed to establish any convincing motive for the appellant to commit the murder of her own child. [Paras 20, 21]
Evidence – Alleged murder weapon – Recovery and treatment of, doubtful – Appellant was convicted u/s.302, IPC for the murder of her infant son – Case of the prosecution that the alleged murder weapon (green dupatta) was recovered from the appellant – Denied by the appellant:
Held: The dupatta was never shown to the doctor who conducted the postmortem examination creating a fundamental disconnect in the chain of evidence – Further, while the forensic examination reportedly found blood stains and human skin tissues on the dupatta, there is no evidence establishing that these materials belonged to the deceased child himself – Therefore, their presence on the dupatta cannot be conclusively linked to the offence – Common items of clothing may contain various biological materials from everyday use, and without specific identification, such evidence remains ambiguous at best – The finding that the cause of death “could be due to throttling” is also tentative. [Paras 18, 19] Evidence – Relevant witness – Non-examination of – Adverse inference to be drawn against prosecution – Appellant was convicted u/s.302, IPC for the murder of her infant son based on alleged extra-judicial confessions made by her – One of the women, who was allegedly a non-interested witness to the extra-judicial confession, was not examined by the prosecution:
Held: While the prosecution is not required to examine every possible witness, it must ensure that those witnesses essential to substantiate the truth are produced before the Court – Failure to do so without adequate explanation casts doubt on the prosecution’s case. [Para 13]
As published in the Supreme Court Reports, Supreme Court of India. Headnotes prepared by: Divya Pandey Babu v. State of Kerala (2010) 9 SCC 189. Text from the Indian Supreme Court Judgments open data set (Dattam Labs), CC BY 4.0.
This page is for informational and research purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Consult a qualified advocate for advice specific to your situation.