Supreme Court overturns conviction based on weak extra-judicial confession: Kalinga vs. State of Karnataka (2024) INSC 124

Introduction

Date of the Judgment: 20 February 2024

Citation: 2024 INSC 124

Judges: Justice Bela M. Trivedi and Justice Satish Chandra Sharma. The judgment was authored by Justice Satish Chandra Sharma.

Can a conviction for murder be solely based on an extra-judicial confession, especially when the evidence is riddled with inconsistencies? The Supreme Court of India recently addressed this critical question in a criminal appeal, ultimately overturning a High Court’s decision and acquitting the accused. This case highlights the importance of corroborating evidence and the high standard of proof required in criminal cases.

Case Background

The case revolves around the tragic death of a 2.5-year-old boy, Hrithik, in Hubli, Karnataka, on November 3, 2002. The child’s father, PW-1, filed a missing person complaint after failing to locate his son. The investigation took a turn when the appellant, the younger brother of PW-1, allegedly confessed to the murder and disposal of the body in a well.

The prosecution’s case was primarily built on the extra-judicial confession of the appellant and the subsequent recovery of the child’s body from the well. The Trial Court acquitted the appellant, citing inconsistencies in the prosecution’s evidence. However, the High Court reversed this decision, convicting the appellant. The Supreme Court heard the appeal against the High Court’s order.

Timeline

Course of Proceedings

The Trial Court acquitted all the accused, citing a lack of eyewitnesses and inconsistencies in the prosecution’s case, particularly regarding the extra-judicial confession and the recovery of the body. The Trial Court also noted discrepancies in PW-1’s statements, the absence of key witnesses (PW-1’s wife and mother), and doubts about the arrest procedure.

The High Court, however, reversed the Trial Court’s decision, convicting the appellant based on the extra-judicial confession and the recovery of the body. The High Court found the confession to be voluntary and the discrepancies in PW-1’s testimony to be minor.

Legal Framework

The case involves several sections of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC):

• Section 302, IPC: This section deals with punishment for murder.
• Section 201, IPC: This section addresses causing disappearance of evidence of an offense, or giving false information to screen offender.
• Section 363, IPC: This section pertains to punishment for kidnapping.
• Section 364, IPC: This section deals with kidnapping or abducting in order to murder.
• Section 34, IPC: This section deals with acts done by several persons in furtherance of common intention.

The judgment also discusses the evidentiary value of extra-judicial confessions under the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, emphasizing that such confessions are a weak form of evidence and require strong corroboration.

Arguments

Appellant’s Submissions:

• The High Court failed to appreciate the discrepancies in PW-1’s evidence and the improvements made at every stage.
• The Trial Court had thoroughly analyzed the evidence, and the High Court should not have re-evaluated it to reach a different conclusion.
• The High Court did not address the absence of PW-1’s mother and wife as witnesses.
• The High Court overlooked the inconsistencies in the arrest sequence and did not subject the extra-judicial confession to a stern test.
• The High Court ignored the discrepancy between the clothes found on the body and those described by PW-1.
• If two views were possible, the High Court should have favored the accused.

State’s Submissions:

• The High Court’s order was based on a correct appreciation of evidence.
• The extra-judicial confession was crucial evidence, and the discovery of the body added to its credibility.
• The Court should not consider every doubt as a reasonable doubt, and minor discrepancies should not invalidate a witness’s testimony.
• Reliance was placed upon the decisions of the Supreme Court in *Sansar Chand v. State of Rajasthan* (2010) 10 SCC 604 and *Piara Singh v. State of Punjab* (1977) 4 SCC 452 to argue that the extra-judicial confession was rightly considered by the High Court.
• Reliance was placed upon the decisions of the Supreme Court in *Mallikarjun v. State of Karnataka* (2019) 8 SCC 359 and *Hari Singh & Anr. v. State of Uttar Pradesh* Criminal Appeal No. 186 of 2018 (SC) to argue that minor discrepancies should not be allowed to demolish the entire testimony of a witness.

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court framed the following issues for consideration:

1. Whether the extra-judicial confession of the appellant/accused was admissible, credible, and sufficient for conviction?
2. Whether the testimony of PW-1 could be termed as reliable and trustworthy?
3. Whether the chain of circumstantial evidence is complete and consistent for arriving at the conclusion of guilt?

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

Authorities

The Supreme Court considered the following authorities:

Judgment

The Supreme Court analyzed the submissions and evidence, concluding that the High Court had erred in reversing the Trial Court’s acquittal.

How each authority was viewed by the Court?

• The Supreme Court followed the ratio in *Chandrapal v. State of Chattisgarh* (2022) SCC OnLine SC 705, reiterating that an extra-judicial confession is a weak form of evidence.
• The Supreme Court distinguished the cases cited by the State, including *Sansar Chand v. State of Rajasthan* (2010) 10 SCC 604, *Piara Singh v. State of Punjab* (1977) 4 SCC 452, *Mallikarjun v. State of Karnataka* (2019) 8 SCC 359, and *Hari Singh & Anr. v. State of Uttar Pradesh* Criminal Appeal No. 186 of 2018 (SC), stating that the facts and circumstances of the present case were different.
• The Supreme Court followed the principles laid down in *Sanjeev v. State of H.P.* (2022) 6 SCC 294, *Vijay Mohan Singh v. State of Karnataka* (2019) 5 SCC 436, *Anwar Ali v. State of H.P.* (2020) 10 SCC 166, *Atley v. State of U.P.* AIR 1955 SC 807 and *Sambasivan v. State of Kerala* (1998) 5 SCC 412, emphasizing the need for a thorough analysis of the Trial Court’s decision and the presumption of innocence.
• The Supreme Court distinguished the case of *Sucha Singh v. State of Punjab* (2003) 7 SCC 643, stating that the inconsistencies in the present case were not minor.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court’s decision was heavily influenced by several factors that cast doubt on the prosecution’s case. The Court emphasized that an extra-judicial confession, especially when it is the sole basis for conviction, must be scrutinized with great care. The inconsistencies in PW-1’s testimony, the lack of corroborating evidence, and the doubts surrounding the recovery of the body were critical in the Court’s reasoning. The Court also noted that the High Court had reversed the Trial Court’s acquittal without identifying any perversity or illegality in the Trial Court’s order.

The Supreme Court’s reasoning was based on a careful analysis of the facts and the law. The Court emphasized that the prosecution had failed to establish a coherent chain of circumstances and that the evidence, at best, created suspicion but not proof of guilt.

Logical Reasoning

Key Takeaways

✓ An extra-judicial confession, by itself, is a weak piece of evidence and cannot be the sole basis for conviction.

✓ The testimony of a witness must be consistent and reliable, and any material contradictions or improvements can render it untrustworthy.

✓ In cases based on circumstantial evidence, the chain of circumstances must be complete and consistent, and any inconsistencies must be explained by the prosecution.

✓ Appellate courts should be cautious in reversing an order of acquittal unless the Trial Court’s decision is perverse or illegal.

✓ The benefit of doubt should be given to the accused if two views are reasonably possible.

Directions

The Supreme Court directed that the appellant be released forthwith if he was in custody.

Development of Law

The judgment reinforces the principle that an extra-judicial confession is a weak piece of evidence and requires strong corroboration. It also reiterates the importance of a consistent and reliable testimony of witnesses and a complete chain of circumstantial evidence for conviction. The judgment also emphasizes that the appellate court should be slow in interfering with an order of acquittal by the trial court. The ratio decidendi of the case is that an extra-judicial confession, without corroborating evidence, cannot be the sole basis for conviction in a criminal case.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court’s decision in *Kalinga @ Kushal vs. State of Karnataka* underscores the importance of a thorough and fair trial process. The Court’s emphasis on corroborating evidence, reliable witness testimonies, and a complete chain of circumstances highlights the high standard of proof required in criminal cases. The judgment serves as a reminder that convictions cannot be based solely on suspicion or weak evidence, and that the benefit of doubt must always be given to the accused.