The Supreme Court of India has acquitted Neelam Kumari, a woman convicted for the murder of her infant son, setting aside the concurrent findings of the Trial Court and the High Court of Himachal Pradesh. The bench, comprising Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra and Justice Augustine George Masih, held that the prosecution failed to establish the appellant’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, highlighting significant infirmities in the alleged extra-judicial confessions and finding the chain of circumstantial evidence to be incomplete.
Background of the Case
The case dates back to December 2006. The prosecution’s narrative, based on the statement of the appellant’s husband, Nikku Ram (PW-1), was that he had married the appellant, Neelam Kumari, in 2004 with the consent of his first wife, Nirmala Devi, as his first marriage was issueless. In 2005, the appellant gave birth to a male child.
According to the husband’s testimony, the appellant was averse to visiting his ancestral village, Katli, where his first wife resided, and had allegedly threatened to kill their son if compelled to do so. On December 8, 2006, following the death of Nikku Ram’s father, the appellant visited village Katli but returned to their home in village Nand the same day. Later that evening, Nikku Ram left the appellant and the child at home to purchase groceries. Upon his return around 8:30 p.m., he found neither his wife nor his son at the house.
The following morning, Nikku Ram received a call from the appellant. Shortly after, he was informed that his son was ill. Rushing back to village Nand, he found his son lying on a cot. A tenant, Dr. Sandesh Guleria (PW-2), examined the child, noted a circular blue mark on his neck, and suggested he had been strangulated, advising immediate hospitalization. The infant was declared brought dead at the hospital in Nalagarh.
The postmortem examination, conducted by Dr. Sunita Sood (PW-10), concluded that the cause of death was asphyxia due to throttling.
Prosecution’s Arguments and Evidence
The conviction of Neelam Kumari in the lower courts rested primarily on two pillars of evidence: alleged extra-judicial confessions and circumstantial evidence.
The prosecution claimed that the appellant made extra-judicial confessions, admitting to killing her son, before her husband Nikku Ram (PW-1), Umrawati (PW-5), and separately before Bhagwanti (PW-4), the Pradhan of Gram Panchayat Nand, in the presence of Krishan Lal (PW-3).
Furthermore, the prosecution relied on the recovery of a green dupatta, allegedly produced by the appellant during interrogation, which was claimed to be the weapon used in the crime. A forensic report indicated the presence of blood and human skin tissues on the dupatta.
The Court’s Analysis
The Supreme Court conducted a thorough re-examination of the evidence and found critical gaps and weaknesses in the prosecution’s case.
On Extra-Judicial Confessions:
The Court began by reiterating the established legal principle that “extra-judicial confessions are generally considered weak evidence and should be corroborated by other, independent evidence.” It cited its own precedent in Sahadevan & Anr. vs. State of Tamil Nadu, which held that while a conviction can be based on such a confession, it must “inspire confidence and is corroborated by other prosecution evidence.”
The bench noted that the appellant had negated these confessions during her examination under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Crucially, the Court pointed out the prosecution’s failure to examine a key witness, Sita Devi, who was allegedly present when the appellant was crying over her unresponsive child. The Court observed, “Failure to do so without adequate explanation, may cast doubt on the prosecution’s case.”
On Circumstantial Evidence:
Applying the five ‘golden principles’ for evaluating circumstantial evidence laid down in Sharad Birdhi Chand Sarda vs. State of Maharashtra, the Court found the prosecution’s chain of evidence to be broken and inconclusive.
- Uncertain Whereabouts: The Court found that the appellant’s location during the critical period was not conclusively established. There was ambiguity as to whether she was present in the house at village Nand or Katli on the night of the incident.
- Gaps in Medical Evidence: A significant time gap of approximately two hours between the alleged strangulation and death, and eight hours before the medical examination, was noted. The Court stated, “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.”
- Issues with the Alleged Weapon: The Court found the evidence related to the recovered dupatta to be “similarly troubling.” It was described as a “commonly available dupatta.” More importantly, the Court highlighted a “fundamental disconnect in the chain of evidence” because the dupatta was never shown to Dr. Sunita Sood (PW-10), the doctor who conducted the postmortem, to assess if it was consistent with the injuries. The Court also noted that while the forensic report found blood and skin tissues, “there is no evidence establishing that these materials belonged to the deceased child himself.”
- Appellant’s Conduct: The Court found the appellant’s subsequent conduct inconsistent with that of a guilty person. It observed, “Rather than attempting to conceal the crime or flee, she proceeded to village Nand to seek medical assistance for the child… Logically, such behaviour is more consistent with innocence than guilt.”
- Lack of Motive: The prosecution failed to establish a convincing motive. The Court dismissed the suggestion that the appellant would kill her child because her husband visited his ancestral village for his father’s last rites, stating that it “defies logic, given that she herself visited village Katli along with him and their child.” The judgment concluded that “such an extreme act runs completely contrary to the natural instinct of a mother of an infant child.”
The Final Decision
Concluding its analysis, the Supreme Court held that the prosecution had failed to prove its case. “The alleged extra-judicial confessions suffer from serious infirmities and cannot be relied upon. The circumstantial evidence, too, does not form a complete chain conclusively pointing towards the guilt of the appellant,” the judgment stated.
In light of these findings, the appeal was allowed. The Court set aside the conviction and sentence under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and acquitted Neelam Kumari of the charges. As she was on bail, the Court ordered that she be discharged from her bail bonds.
