A) ABSTRACT / HEADNOTE

This case delves into the admissibility and credibility of extra-judicial confessions and their evidentiary value in criminal cases based on circumstantial evidence. The central issue was whether the extra-judicial confession of the accused was admissible and sufficient for conviction. The trial court acquitted the accused, citing a lack of reliable evidence, including the testimony of PW-1 (the deceased’s father) and gaps in the circumstantial chain. The High Court reversed this decision, relying primarily on the confession and associated recovery of the victim’s body. However, the Supreme Court held that the High Court erred in placing reliance on questionable evidence, such as an uncorroborated confession and inconsistent testimony, restoring the trial court’s acquittal. This case emphasizes the higher standard of proof required in cases relying on circumstantial evidence and extra-judicial confessions.

Keywords: Extra-judicial confession, circumstantial evidence, chain of circumstances, presumption of innocence, appellate powers.

B) CASE DETAILS

i) Judgment Cause Title: Kalinga @ Kushal v. State of Karnataka By Police Inspector Hubli
ii) Case Number: Criminal Appeal No. 622 of 2013
iii) Judgment Date: 20 February 2024
iv) Court: Supreme Court of India
v) Quorum: Justice Bela M. Trivedi and Justice Satish Chandra Sharma
vi) Author: Justice Satish Chandra Sharma
vii) Citation: [2024] 2 S.C.R. 391
viii) Legal Provisions Involved:

• Indian Penal Code, 1860: Sections 201, 302, 363, 364 read with Section 34
• Indian Evidence Act, 1872: Section 30 (Extra-judicial confessions)
  ix) Judgments overruled by the Case: High Court of Karnataka, Circuit Bench at Dharwad in Criminal Appeal No. 130 of 2005.
  x) Related Law Subjects: Criminal Law, Evidence Law.

C) INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND OF JUDGMENT

The appellant, Kalinga @ Kushal, was convicted by the High Court for the alleged murder of a two-and-a-half-year-old boy, Hrithik, his nephew. The trial court had earlier acquitted the accused, citing contradictions in evidence and gaps in the prosecution’s case. The High Court reversed the acquittal, relying on the accused’s extra-judicial confession and circumstantial evidence. This Supreme Court appeal addresses the judicial principles for convicting based on such evidence and stresses the importance of safeguarding the presumption of innocence.

D) FACTS OF THE CASE

• Incident Timeline: On 3 November 2002, Hrithik went missing while playing. After an extensive search, PW-1 lodged a missing report on the same night. On 15 November 2002, the appellant allegedly confessed to PW-1 that he murdered Hrithik and disposed of the body in a well.
• Discovery of Body: Based on the confession, the child’s body was recovered from a well.
• Prosecution Evidence: The case relied on circumstantial evidence, particularly the appellant’s extra-judicial confession and subsequent recovery of the body.
• Contradictions: The trial court noted inconsistencies in PW-1’s testimony, including differing accounts of events, the role of co-accused, and details about the child’s clothing and ornaments.

E) LEGAL ISSUES RAISED

1. Whether the extra-judicial confession was admissible, credible, and sufficient for conviction.
2. Whether the testimony of PW-1 was reliable and trustworthy.
3. Whether the chain of circumstantial evidence was complete and consistent with the accused’s guilt.

F) PETITIONER/APPELLANT’S ARGUMENTS

1. Unreliable Confession: The appellant argued that the alleged confession was untrustworthy, unsupported, and contradicted by other evidence.
2. Contradictory Testimonies: Multiple discrepancies in PW-1’s statements undermined his credibility.
3. Lack of Evidence Linking the Accused: The appellant contended that no direct evidence established his involvement, and the circumstantial chain was incomplete.
4. Erroneous High Court Judgment: The High Court failed to demonstrate perversity or illegality in the trial court’s findings and improperly reappreciated evidence.

G) RESPONDENT’S ARGUMENTS

1. Voluntary Confession: The State emphasized the extra-judicial confession’s credibility, citing its consistency with the recovery of the victim’s body.
2. Standard of Proof: The prosecution contended that minor inconsistencies in evidence could not amount to reasonable doubt.
3. Judicial Precedents: The State relied on case law emphasizing that extra-judicial confessions, if voluntary and corroborated, are valid evidence.

H) JUDGMENT

a. Ratio Decidendi

• Extra-judicial confessions are inherently weak evidence, requiring corroboration and careful scrutiny.
• The High Court erred in reversing the acquittal without demonstrating that the trial court’s findings were perverse or illegal.
• The prosecution failed to establish a coherent chain of circumstances, leaving room for reasonable doubt.

b. Obiter Dicta

• Trial courts must evaluate circumstantial evidence rigorously, especially in cases reliant on weak evidence like extra-judicial confessions.

c. Guidelines

1. Presumption of Innocence: Appellate courts must respect acquittals unless compelling reasons exist to overturn them.
2. Chain of Circumstances: Circumstantial evidence must conclusively establish guilt and exclude other possibilities.
3. Standards for Confession: A confession must be voluntary, truthful, and corroborated by reliable evidence.

I) CONCLUSION & COMMENTS

This judgment underscores the judicial responsibility to ensure fair trials and safeguard the presumption of innocence. It reiterates that convictions based on circumstantial evidence and extra-judicial confessions must meet rigorous standards. The Supreme Court’s decision to restore the trial court’s acquittal strengthens principles of justice, ensuring that suspicion does not replace proof.

J) REFERENCES

Important Cases Referred

1. Chandrapal v. State of Chhattisgarh ([2022] 3 SCR 366)
2. Sansar Chand v. State of Rajasthan ([2010] 12 SCR 583)
3. Piara Singh v. State of Punjab ([1978] 1 SCR 597)
4. Sanjeev v. State of Himachal Pradesh ([2022] 6 SCC 294)
5. Sucha Singh v. State of Punjab ([2003] Suppl. 2 SCR 35)

Important Statutes Referred

1. Indian Penal Code, 1860 (Sections 201, 302, 363, 364).
2. Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (Section 30).