The Supreme Court set aside a woman’s conviction for killing her infant son, holding that extra-judicial confessions were weak and circumstantial evidence did not prove guilt. The Court said such an act defies a mother’s natural instinct.
New Delhi: On August 22, the Supreme Court of India has acquitted a woman who was earlier convicted for killing her infant son, after finding that the evidence produced by the prosecution was not strong enough.
The Court observed that the extra-judicial confessions made by the woman suffered from major flaws and the circumstantial evidence presented did not form a complete and unbroken chain that could prove her guilt.
The judges also stressed that such an extreme act went against the natural instincts of a mother.
This criminal appeal was filed before the Supreme Court against the Himachal Pradesh High Court judgment which had confirmed her conviction under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code for the alleged murder of her infant son.
The Trial Court had sentenced her to life imprisonment, which was upheld by the High Court.
The Division Bench of Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra and Justice Augustine George Masih held,
“The prosecution has failed to establish any convincing motive for the appellant to commit the murder of her own child. The suggestion that the appellant killed her child because her husband visited village Katli for the last rites of his recently deceased father defies logic, given that she herself visited village Katli along with him and their child on 8th December, 2006. Moreover, such an extreme act runs completely contrary to the natural instinct of a mother of an infant child.”
Advocate-on-Record Vivek Sharma represented the appellant, while Advocate Muhammad Ali Khan appeared for the respondent State.
The case had its background in a family dispute. The complainant, Nikku Ram, had first married Nirmala Devi in 1982 but the marriage remained childless.
With Nirmala Devi’s consent, in 2004 he married the appellant and began living with her in a new house, while providing separate accommodation for his first wife. In 2005, the appellant gave birth to a male child.
According to the complainant, the appellant would often threaten that if she was forced to visit the ancestral village, she would kill her son.
When the complainant’s father passed away, he and his brother went to the market to buy groceries for the rituals. On returning, he did not find his wife and son at home. Later, he received a phone call saying the child was unwell.
The baby, who appeared to have been strangled, was taken to the hospital where the doctor declared him dead. The prosecution claimed that the appellant confessed to killing her son before her husband and three other persons. However, she denied the allegations and pleaded not guilty.
The Trial Court convicted her and sentenced her to life imprisonment. After her appeal was dismissed by the High Court, she approached the Supreme Court.
The Supreme Court Bench noted that her conviction was largely based on alleged extra-judicial confessions.
The judges observed,
“It is settled law that extra-judicial confessions are generally considered weak evidence and should be corroborated by other, independent evidence.”
The Court referred to the earlier ruling in Sahadevan & Anr. vs. State (2012).
During her statement under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, the appellant denied making any confessions and gave an alternate explanation. She said that she found her child unresponsive in the morning and started crying.
On hearing her cries, two women came and asked what happened. One of these women was an alleged witness to the extra-judicial confession, but she was never examined by the prosecution. The Bench remarked,
“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, may cast doubt on the prosecution’s case…”
The Court highlighted that the case was mainly based on circumstantial evidence and reminded the importance of the five “golden principles” for evaluating such evidence.
Referring to the medical reports, the Bench noticed that there was a time gap between the alleged strangulation and the medical examination. Around two hours had passed before the death and eight hours before the examination.
The judges said,
“In our view, this intervening period weakens the prosecution’s ability to establish an unbroken chain of events leading inexorably to the conclusion of the appellant’s guilt.”
It was also found that the dupatta allegedly used in strangulation was never shown to the doctor during the postmortem.
This created a serious gap in the chain of evidence. The postmortem opinion that the cause of death “could be due to throttling” was described as tentative.
Looking at the appellant’s conduct after the incident, the Bench noted that instead of hiding the crime or running away, she went to the village to get medical help for the child and even took the child to their tenant.
The Bench observed,
“Logically, such behaviour is more consistent with innocence than guilt.”
The Court further stated,
“This Court has repeatedly affirmed that the strength of the 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.”
Since the prosecution could not prove the case beyond reasonable doubt, the Supreme Court allowed the appeal and set aside the conviction.
Appearance:
Appellant: Jail Petition, AOR Vivek Sharma, Amicus Curiae Vivek Sharma, Advocate Vijay Kumar Sharma
Respondent: Advocates Muhammad Ali Khan, Omar Hoda, Eesha Bakshi, Kamran Khan, Arjun Sharma, Jayanti Singh, Gurbani Bhatia, AOR Abishek Jebaraj
Case Title:
Neelam Kumari v. The State of Himachal Pradesh (Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 1013)
Click Here to Read Our Reports on Murder
FOLLOW US ON YOUTUBE FOR MORE LEGAL UPDATES
