In a recent landmark decision of Neelam Kumari Vs The State of Himachal Pradesh, the Supreme Court of India overturned the murder conviction of a woman accused of killing her infant son, highlighting the critical importance of a complete chain of circumstantial evidence and the unreliability of extra-judicial confessions. The case, which spans nearly two decades, serves as a powerful reminder of the principles governing criminal justice, particularly in cases where the evidence is not direct.

The appellant, married to Nikku Ram, had given birth to a male child in 2005. The prosecution's case was built on the assertion that she murdered her son by throttling him with a dupatta (scarf), allegedly motivated by a family dispute with her husband's first wife. The trial court and the Himachal Pradesh High Court had previously upheld her conviction, relying heavily on alleged extra-judicial confessions made to her husband and other villagers, as well as the recovery of a dupatta. The appellant, however, maintained her innocence, claiming that her son was found unresponsive and that her husband's first wife had threatened to harm the child.

   

The Supreme Court systematically dismantled the prosecution's case, finding significant flaws in the evidence presented.

The court reiterated the legal principle that extra-judicial confessions are a weak form of evidence and require strong corroboration. It noted that the alleged confessions lacked credibility and were contradicted by the appellant's own statement. The prosecution's failure to examine a key witness named by the appellant as being present during her distress further cast doubt on the reliability of the confession.

The Court meticulously applied the "five golden principles" for evaluating circumstantial evidence, first established in the case of Hanumant v. The State of Madhya Pradesh and later solidified in Sharad Birdhi Chand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra.

Incomplete Chain of Events: The prosecution failed to conclusively establish the appellant’s whereabouts during the critical period. The husband's testimony was inconsistent, and the timeline of events between the child's alleged strangulation and the medical examination was too long, allowing for the possibility of other individuals having access to the child.

Dubious Recovery and Forensic Link: The dupatta, presented as the murder weapon, was a common item and the appellant denied producing it. Crucially, the doctor who performed the autopsy was never shown the dupatta, creating a fundamental gap in the evidence. While the forensic report noted blood and human tissue on the fabric, it failed to confirm that these belonged to the deceased child.

The court found the alleged motive—that the appellant killed her child because her husband visited his ancestral village—to be illogical and against the "natural instinct of a mother." Furthermore, the appellant's actions immediately after the incident, such as seeking medical help for the child, were deemed inconsistent with the behavior of a guilty person. This behavior, the court concluded, was more indicative of an innocent person trying to save her son.

Based on these findings, the Supreme Court ruled that the prosecution had failed to prove the appellant's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. The conviction and life sentence were set aside, and the appellant was acquitted. This judgment reinforces the judiciary’s commitment to a high standard of proof in criminal cases, emphasizing that convictions based on circumstantial evidence must be built on an unbroken and conclusive chain of facts. It also highlights the courts' careful scrutiny of extra-judicial confessions, which can be easily fabricated or misconstrued.