The Supreme Court acquitted the accused, holding that the prosecution failed to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt. The conviction, based on extra-judicial confession and circumstantial evidence, was unsustainable as the confessions were unreliable and the circumstantial chain was incomplete, violating the principles established in Sharad Birdhichand Sarda. The benefit of doubt was accorded to the appellant.
Facts Of The Case:
Neelam Kumari, the appellant, was convicted under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code for the murder of her infant son. The prosecution’s case was that on December 8, 2006, after returning with her husband, Nikku Ram, from his ancestral village, she was left alone with the child at their home in village Nand. When Nikku Ram returned later that evening, both the appellant and the child were missing. The following morning, the appellant contacted her husband, and he subsequently found the child with a blue circular mark on its neck. The child was declared dead at the hospital, with the cause of death determined as asphyxia due to throttling. The case rested heavily on alleged extra-judicial confessions made by the appellant to her husband and other villagers, admitting to the crime, and the recovery of a green dupatta said to be the murder weapon, which forensically revealed blood and human skin tissue. The appellant, however, pleaded not guilty, claiming the child was found unconscious after they had stayed the night at the house of her husband’s first wife, who had previously threatened her. The Trial Court and the High Court upheld the conviction, leading to the present appeal before the Supreme Court.
Procedural History:
The procedural history of the case began with the conviction and sentencing of the appellant, Neelam Kumari, to life imprisonment under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code by the Trial Court vide its judgment and order dated July 20, 2007. Aggrieved by this decision, the appellant filed an appeal before the High Court of Himachal Pradesh. The High Court, vide its impugned judgment and order dated December 11, 2009, affirmed the conviction and sentence handed down by the Trial Court. Subsequently, the appellant exercised her statutory right by filing the present Criminal Appeal before the Supreme Court of India, which was registered as Criminal Appeal No. 582 of 2013. The Supreme Court, after hearing the appeal, delivered its judgment on August 20, 2025, allowing the appeal, setting aside the conviction and sentence, and acquitting the appellant.
READ ALSO:Supreme Court : Courts Can’t Reopen Departmental Inquiries; Role is to Check Procedure, Not Merits
Court Observation:
The Supreme Court observed that the prosecution’s case, based primarily on extra-judicial confession and circumstantial evidence, was fraught with doubt and failed to meet the requisite legal standards. The Court emphasized that extra-judicial confession is inherently weak evidence and found the alleged confessions in this case to be unreliable and lacking corroboration. Applying the established principles for circumstantial evidence from Sharad Birdhichand Sarda, the Court held that the circumstances did not form a complete chain pointing unequivocally to the appellant’s guilt. Key gaps included an unaccounted timeline between the alleged crime and the medical examination, the failure to connect the recovered dupatta to the victim’s injuries, and the appellant’s conduct of seeking immediate medical help, which was inconsistent with guilt. Furthermore, the Court noted the absence of a credible motive for a mother to kill her own infant, ultimately concluding that the prosecution had not proved its case beyond a reasonable doubt.
Final Decision & Judgement:
The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the impugned judgments of the courts below, and acquitted the appellant, Neelam Kumari, of the charge under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code. The Court held that the prosecution failed to prove the guilt of the appellant beyond a reasonable doubt, as the evidence—both the extra-judicial confessions and the circumstantial chain—was insufficient, unreliable, and contained significant gaps. Since the appellant was already on bail, the Court ordered her discharge from bail bonds.
Case Details:
Case Title: Neelam Kumari vs. The State of Himachal Pradesh Citation: 2025 INSC 1013 Criminal Appeal No.: Criminal Appeal No. 582 of 2013 Date of Judgement: August 20, 2025 Judges/Justice Name: Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra and Justice Augustine George Masih
Download The Judgement Here