Supreme Court of India
Neelam Kumari vs The State Of Himachal Pradesh on 20 August, 2025
Author: Prashant Kumar Mishra
Bench: Prashant Kumar Mishra
2025 INSC 1013
REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 582 OF 2013
NEELAM KUMARI …APPELLANT
VERSUS
THE STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH …RESPONDENT
JUDGMENT
PRASHANT KUMAR MISHRA, J.
1. This Criminal Appeal challenges the impugned judgment and
order dated 11th December, 2009 passed by the High Court of
Himachal Pradesh whereby the conviction and sentence of the
appellant has been affirmed. The appellant has been convicted
under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 18601 for committing
murder of her infant son and has been sentenced to undergo
imprisonment for life by the Trial Court.
2. The facts in brief are that Nikku Ram (PW-1), who is the
Signature Not Verified
complainant and husband of the appellant, was married to Nirmala
Digitally signed by
NISHA KHULBEY
Date: 2025.08.21
19:53:55 IST
Reason:
1 For short, ‘the IPC’
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 582 OF 2013 Page 1 of 13
Devi in 1982. As there was no issue out of the said wedlock, in
2004, with the consent of Nirmala Devi, Nikku Ram married the
appellant and started residing with her in a newly constructed
house at village Nand. However, Nikku Ram provided a separate
residence to his first wife Nirmala Devi in his ancestral village Katli.
3. In 2005, the appellant gave birth to a male child. The
appellant never visited the ancestral village Katli and she used to
dissuade her husband also from visiting the said village. The
appellant used to threaten Nikku Ram that if she is compelled to
visit village Katli, she would kill her son.
4. When father of Nikku Ram died on 3rd December, 2006, the
appellant did not visit village Katli to mourn his death. She only
visited the village Katli on 8th December, 2006 along with her infant
child. However, she returned the same day along with her husband
and the infant child. Thereafter, Nikku Ram along with his brother
went to market to purchase some grocery items to perform post-
death rituals of his father, leaving behind the appellant and his
child in the house at village Nand. Around 08:30 p.m., when Nikku
Ram returned to his house in village Nand, he did not find his wife
and child there. He enquired about them from his tenant Dr.
Sandesh Guleria (PW-2). Thereafter, he went to village Katli and
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 582 OF 2013 Page 2 of 13
stayed there for a night. On 9th December, 2006 at 07:30 a.m.,
Nikku Ram received a telephonic call from the appellant asking
about his whereabouts. At the same time, one Ram Pal informed
Nikku Ram that he should reach his village Nand as his son was ill.
Thereafter, he proceeded to his village Nand and found his son lying
on the cot. Dr. Sandesh Guleria (PW-2), who was the tenant of
Nikku Ram, examined the child and told Nikku Ram to immediately
take the child to the hospital at Nalagarh as the child was appeared
to have been strangulated. There was a circular mark found on the
neck of the child which had turned blue. The child was taken to
the hospital at Nalagarh where the doctor declared that the child
was brought dead.
5. On the basis of the statement of Nikku Ram, a first
information report came to be registered. The dead body of the child
was sent for autopsy. On examination of the dead body, Dr. Sunita
Sood (PW-10) found nail marks on the left side and ligature marks
around the neck extending up to back. Lungs, heart and vessels
were found congested. The contents of the abdomen were in liquid
form. As per doctor’s opinion, the cause of death was asphyxia.
Doctor confirmed that the death was due to throttling. Dr. Sunita
Sood (PW-10) stated that the ligature marks found on the neck of
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 582 OF 2013 Page 3 of 13
the child were due to some pressure by dupatta which caused
asphyxia and led to death by throttling.
6. Extra-judicial confession admitting the killing of her son is
alleged to have been made by the appellant separately one before
Nikku Ram (PW-1) and Umrawati (PW-5), and another before
Bhagwanti (PW-4), Pradhan of Gram Panchayat Nand, in presence of
Krishan Lal (PW-3). However, the appellant pleaded not guilty.
7. The appellant was interrogated. On her interrogation, she
produced one green dupatta which was allegedly used by her in the
commission of the crime. As per the forensic report, blood and
human skin tissues were found on the dupatta.
8. The appellant’s version is that except her father-in-law, no one
liked her in her husband’s family. Nirmala Devi, first wife of Nikku
Ram, used to threaten her that if she would not leave her husband,
she would kill the child. According to her, on 8th December, 2006,
she stayed in village Katli for a night. She kept her child on the bed
of Nirmala Devi and she slept on the floor. When she woke up in the
morning, she found her son unconscious and unresponsive. She
took the child to a doctor. After examining the child, the doctor
advised her to take the child to the hospital at Nalagarh. When she
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 582 OF 2013 Page 4 of 13
came out of the doctor’s room, her husband Nikku Ram had arrived
there, and both took the child to the hospital at Nalagarh. However,
Nikku Ram contradicted the version of the appellant. As per the
statement of Nikku Ram, the appellant never stayed in the house at
village Katli and she, in fact, stayed at village Karlata which was 01
kilometre away from village Nand.
9. The Trial Court after considering the evidence on record,
convicted the appellant and sentenced her to undergo imprisonment
for life vide judgment and order dated 20th July, 2007. An appeal
preferred by the appellant against her conviction and sentence came
to be dismissed vide impugned judgment and order dated 11th
December, 2009 passed by the High Court. Hence, this Appeal.
ANALYSIS & FINDINGS
10. The conviction of the appellant rests significantly on alleged
extra-judicial confessions made to her husband Nikku Ram (PW-1),
Ward Member Krishan Lal (PW-3), Pradhan Bhagwanti Devi (PW-4),
and Umrawati (PW-5).
11. It is settled law that extra-judicial confessions are generally
considered weak evidence and should be corroborated by other,
independent evidence. This Court in Sahadevan & Anr. vs. State
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 582 OF 2013 Page 5 of 13
of Tamil Nadu2 aptly summarized this principle in the following
words:
“12. …It is a case based upon circumstantial evidence.
In case of circumstantial evidence, the onus lies upon
the prosecution to prove the complete chain of events
which shall undoubtedly point towards the guilt of the
accused. Furthermore, in case of circumstantial
evidence, where the prosecution relies upon an extra-
judicial confession, the court has to examine the same
with a greater degree of care and caution. It is a
settled principle of criminal jurisprudence that extra-
judicial confession is a weak piece of evidence.
Wherever the Court, upon due appreciation of the
entire prosecution evidence, intends to base a
conviction on an extra-judicial confession, it must
ensure that the same inspires confidence and is
corroborated by other prosecution evidence. If,
however, the extra-judicial confession suffers from
material discrepancies or inherent improbabilities and
does not appear to be cogent as per the prosecution
version, it may be difficult for the court to base a
conviction on such a confession. In such
circumstances, the court would be fully justified in
ruling such evidence out of consideration.”
12. This position of law has been followed in a plethora of
judgments of this Court, including SK. Yusuf vs. State of West
Bengal3, Pancho vs. State of Haryana4 and Jagroop Singh vs.
State of Punjab5. Further, this Court in Chandrapal vs. State of
Chhattisgarh (Earlier M.P.)6 had specifically held as follows:
“11. …However, this court has consistently held that
an extra judicial confession is a weak kind of evidence2 2012 INSC 209.
3 2011 INSC 415.
4 2011 INSC 773.
5 2012 INSC 296.
6 2022 INSC 629.
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 582 OF 2013 Page 6 of 13
and unless it inspires confidence or is fully
corroborated by some other evidence of clinching
nature, ordinarily conviction for the offence of murder
should not be made only on the evidence of extra
judicial confession. …”
13. It is to be noted that during examination of the appellant
under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 19737, she
had negated the extra-judicial confessions and in the said
statement, she had provided an alternative explanation. She stated
that when she found her child unresponsive in the morning, she
started crying. On hearing her cries, two women came and made
enquiries. One of the women, namely Sita Devi, who was allegedly a
non-interested witness to the extra-judicial confession, was never
examined by the prosecution. While the prosecution is not required
to examine every possible witness, it must ensure that those
witnesses essential to substantiate the truth are produced before
the Court. Failure to do so without adequate explanation, may cast
doubt on the prosecution’s case as held by this Court in the case of
Gaurav Maini vs. The State of Haryana8 that non-examination of
a relevant witness at the trial persuades the Court to draw an
adverse inference against the prosecution.
7 For short, ‘the Cr.PC’
8 2024 INSC 488.
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 582 OF 2013 Page 7 of 13
14. Beyond these alleged confessions, the case of the prosecution
rests heavily on circumstantial evidence. In this regard, we find it
pertinent to mention the five ‘golden principles’ for evaluating
circumstantial evidence which originated in Hanumant vs. The
State of Madhya Pradesh9 and crystallized in Sharad Birdhi
Chand Sarda vs. State of Maharashtra10 namely:
(a) The circumstances from which the conclusion of guilt is
to be drawn should be fully established. The
circumstances concerned “must or should” and not “may
be” established;
(b) The facts so established should be consistent only with
the hypothesis of the guilt of the accused, that is to say,
they should not be explainable on any other hypothesis
except that the accused is guilty;
(c) The circumstances should be of a conclusive nature and
tendency;
(d) They should exclude every possible hypothesis except the
one to be proved; and
(e) There must be a chain of evidence so complete as not to
leave any reasonable ground for the conclusion
9 1952 INSC 41.
10 1984 INSC 121.
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 582 OF 2013 Page 8 of 13
consistent with the innocence of the accused and must
show that in all human probability the act must have
been done by the accused.
15. At the outset, we note that the appellant’s whereabouts during
the most critical period are not conclusively established. Per her
husband Nikku Ram (PW-1), on 8th December, 2006, the appellant
came back to village Nand with him from village Katli. However, he
further stated that he did not find the appellant and the child at
their house in village Nand when he returned from Kainchi Mor at
around 08:30 pm on the same day, and the appellant called him the
following morning to enquire where he had spent the previous night
i.e., per his statement, husband and wife did not encounter each
other the night of 8th December, 2006. We also note that he has
admitted before the Trial Court that the house in village Katli was
double-storeyed, meaning the appellant could have been present
there overnight without his knowledge. Dr. Sandesh Guleria (PW-2),
residing in village Nand, also stated that he was asleep from 04:00
pm to 06:00 pm, and did not see the appellant post 06:00 pm.
16. The medical evidence suggests a significant gap between the
alleged time of strangulation and the medical examination, with
approximately two hours passing before death and eight hours
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 582 OF 2013 Page 9 of 13
before examination. This extended timeline introduces considerable
uncertainty about when and how the fatal injuries occurred. In
other words, during this time gap, numerous events could have
transpired, and various individuals other than the appellant could
have had access to the child. 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.
17. The recovery and treatment of the alleged murder weapon is
similarly troubling. It is the case of the prosecution that a green
dupatta used to murder the child (Ex.P2) was recovered from the
appellant during the interrogation in the presence of Krishan Lal
(PW-3) and Bhagwanti Devi (PW-4). It was noted by the Trial Court
that it is a commonly available dupatta, and that the appellant has
strenuously denied producing the same by her in her judicial
statement under Section 313 of the Cr.PC.
18. Furthermore, the dupatta was never shown to Dr. Sunita Sood
(PW-10) who conducted the postmortem examination. This creates a
fundamental disconnect in the chain of evidence. It seems obvious
that the doctor who determined the cause of death must be given
the opportunity to assess whether the alleged murder weapon was
consistent with the injuries observed on the deceased child.
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 582 OF 2013 Page 10 of 13
19. On the point of the alleged weapon, we also note that while the
forensic examination reportedly found blood stains and human skin
tissues on the dupatta, there is no evidence establishing that these
materials belonged to the deceased child himself. Therefore, their
presence on the dupatta cannot be conclusively linked to the
offence. Common items of clothing may contain various biological
materials from everyday use, and without specific identification,
such evidence remains ambiguous at best. The finding that the
cause of death “could be due to throttling” is also tentative.
20. We also find it pertinent to point out that if the appellant had
indeed killed her child, her subsequent conduct is difficult to
reconcile with guilt. Rather than attempting to conceal the crime or
flee, she proceeded to village Nand to seek medical assistance for the
child. Specifically, she took the child to their tenant, Dr. Sandesh
Guleria (PW-2). Logically, such behaviour is more consistent with
innocence than guilt. At the very least, represents a significant
inconsistency in the prosecution’s narrative. It is difficult to
reconcile that the appellant was cold-blooded enough to strangle her
own child but urgently sought medical help for that child shortly
thereafter.
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 582 OF 2013 Page 11 of 13
21. This Court has repeatedly affirmed that the strength of the
motive plays a crucial role in establishing the credibility of the
prosecution’s case. While a weak or absent motive alone may not be
sufficient to acquit an accused if other circumstances form a
complete chain pointing unerringly to guilt, it significantly weighs in
favour of the accused and creates a reasonable doubt. In this
regard, we reproduce a pertinent extract from this Court’s recent
decision in Anwar Ali & Anr. vs. The State of Himachal
Pradesh11:
“9. Now so far as the submission on behalf of the
accused that in the present case the prosecution has
failed to establish and prove the motive and therefore
the accused deserves acquittal is concerned, it is true
that the absence of proving the motive cannot be a
ground to reject the prosecution case. It is also true
and as held by this Court in the case of Suresh
Chandra Bahri v. State of Bihar 1995 Supp (1) SCC 80
that if motive is proved that would supply a link in the
chain of circumstantial evidence but the absence
thereof cannot be a ground to reject the prosecution
case. However, at the same time, as observed by this
Court in the case of Babu (supra)12, absence of motive
in a case depending on circumstantial evidence is a
factor that weighs in favour of the accused. …”
22. The prosecution has failed to establish any convincing motive
for the appellant to commit the murder of her own child. The
suggestion that the appellant killed her child because her husband
visited village Katli for the last rites of his recently deceased father
11 2020 INSC 563.
12 Babu vs. State of Kerala, (2010) 9 SCC 189
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 582 OF 2013 Page 12 of 13
defies logic, given that she herself visited village Katli along with him
and their child on 8th December, 2006. Moreover, such an extreme
act runs completely contrary to the natural instinct of a mother of
an infant child.
23. Based on the above analysis, we are of the view that the
prosecution has failed to establish the guilt of the appellant beyond
reasonable doubt. 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.
24. In light of these findings, the Appeal is allowed. The conviction
and sentence of the appellant under Section 302 of the IPC is set
aside and the appellant is acquitted of the offence alleged against
her. Since the appellant was already on bail, she be discharged
from her bail bonds.
.……………………………………….J.
(PRASHANT KUMAR MISHRA)
……..………………………………..J.
(AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH)
NEW DELHI;
AUGUST 20, 2025.
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 582 OF 2013 Page 13 of 13