Extra-Judicial Confession - The Legal Chamber

Supreme Court’s Landmark Ruling :The Problem with Extra-Judicial Confessions

23Sep

By The Legal ChamberNo Comments

Supreme Court

Supreme Court’s Landmark Ruling :The Problem with Extra-Judicial Confessions

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 a...

Chain of Circumstances Broken: Supreme Court Frees Accused in Landmark Circumstantial Evidence Ruling

This Supreme Court judgment acquits the accused based on the prosecution's failure to establish a complete chain of circumstantial evidence as mandated by Sharad Birdhichand Sarda. The court found the evidence regarding motive, last seen, extra-judicial confessions, and recoveries to be unreliable, contradictory, and insufficient to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt. Facts Of The Case: The case involves the murder of Balwant, whose body was discovered in a waterworks tank in Hisar on December 23, 1997. His father, Har Nath (PW-11), identified the body and filed a complaint, leading to an FIR. The prosecution alleged that the accused—Shanti Devi, her son Rajbir, and Veena—murdered Balwant due to a property dispute, as Shanti Devi was a tenant in his house, and an illicit relatio...

Supreme Court Settles the Law: A Person Not Named in Police Report Can Still Be Summoned to Face Trial

The Supreme Court held that under Section 193 CrPC, a Sessions Court is empowered to summon additional accused persons not named in the police report upon committal of a case, as cognizance is taken of the offence—not the offender—and such power is incidental to the court’s original jurisdiction post-committal. This does not amount to taking "fresh cognizance. Facts Of The Case: The case originated from an FIR registered at Police Station Shivali, Kanpur Dehat, concerning the murder and rape of a woman. The initial investigation named one Ajay as the suspect. However, during the probe, the petitioner's name surfaced based on witness statements and an alleged extra-judicial confession. Despite this, the Crime Branch gave the petitioner a clean chit, and a chargesheet was filed solely agai...