NEELAM KUMARIversusTHE STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH

                [2025] 8 S.C.R. 1464 : 2025 INSC 1013

                           Neelam Kumari
                                   v.
                    The State of Himachal Pradesh
                     (Criminal Appeal No. 582 of 2013)
                                20 August 2025
                     [Prashant Kumar Mishra* and
                     Augustine George Masih, JJ.]


                           Issue for Consideration
       Whether the conviction and sentence of the appellant u/s.302, IPC
       for the murder of her infant son ought to be set aside.

                                  Headnotes†
       Evidence – Extra-judicial confessions – Conviction based
       upon – When not justified – Appellant was convicted u/s.302,
       IPC for the murder of her infant son based on alleged
       extra-judicial confessions made to her husband (PW-1), Ward
       Member (PW-3), Pradhan (PW-4) and PW-5, and sentenced to
       life imprisonment – Conviction and sentence affirmed by High
       Court – Interference with:
       Held: Extra-judicial confessions are weak evidence and should
       be corroborated by other, independent evidence – In the present
       case, the alleged extra-judicial confessions suffer from serious
       infirmities and cannot be relied upon – Prosecution has failed to
       establish any convincing motive for the appellant to commit the
       murder of her own child – The circumstantial evidence, too, does
       not form a complete chain conclusively pointing towards the guilt
       of the appellant – Guilt of the appellant not established beyond
       reasonable doubt – Conviction and sentence of the appellant
       u/s.302 set aside – Acquitted. [Paras 11, 22-24]

       Evidence – Motive – Relevance – Appellant was convicted
       u/s.302, IPC for the murder of her infant son – Motive not
       established:
       Held: Motive plays a crucial role in establishing the credibility of
       the prosecution’s case – While a weak or absent motive alone may

* Author
[2025] 8 S.C.R.                                                                    1465

            Neelam Kumari v. The State of Himachal Pradesh


     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 – The
     suggestion that the appellant killed her child because her husband
     visited village for the last rites of his recently deceased father defies
     logic, given that she herself visited the village along with him and
     their child – Moreover, such an extreme act runs completely contrary
     to the natural instinct of a mother of an infant child – Furthermore,
     if the appellant had indeed killed her child, her subsequent conduct
     is difficult to reconcile with guilt – It is difficult to reconcile that she
     was cold-blooded enough to strangle her own child but urgently
     sought medical help for that child shortly thereafter – Prosecution
     failed to establish any convincing motive for the appellant to commit
     the murder of her own child. [Paras 20, 21]

     Evidence – Alleged murder weapon – Recovery and treatment
     of, doubtful – Appellant was convicted u/s.302, IPC for the
     murder of her infant son – Case of the prosecution that the
     alleged murder weapon (green dupatta) was recovered from
     the appellant – Denied by the appellant:
     Held: The dupatta was never shown to the doctor who conducted
     the postmortem examination creating a fundamental disconnect
     in the chain of evidence – Further, 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. [Paras 18, 19]

     Evidence – Relevant witness – Non-examination of – Adverse
     inference to be drawn against prosecution – Appellant was
     convicted u/s.302, IPC for the murder of her infant son based
     on alleged extra-judicial confessions made by her – One
     of the women, who was allegedly a non-interested witness
     to the extra-judicial confession, was not examined by the
     prosecution:
1466                                                          [2025] 8 S.C.R.

                         Supreme Court Reports


    Held: 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 casts doubt on the prosecution’s
    case. [Para 13]

                             Case Law Cited
    Sahadevan & Anr. v. State of Tamil Nadu, 2012 INSC 209 : [2012]
    4 SCR 366; Chandrapal v. State of Chhattisgarh (Earlier M.P.),
    2022 INSC 629 : [2022] 3 SCR 366; Gaurav Maini v. The State
    of Haryana, 2024 INSC 488 : [2024] 7 SCR 333; Sharad Birdhi
    Chand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra, 1984 INSC 121 : [1985] 1
    SCR 88; Anwar Ali & Anr. v. The State of Himachal Pradesh, 2020
    INSC 563 : [2020] 9 SCR 878 – relied on.
    S.K. Yusuf v. State of West Bengal, 2011 INSC 415 : [2011] 8
    SCR 83; Pancho v. State of Haryana, 2011 INSC 773 : [2011] 12
    SCR 1173; Jagroop Singh v. State of Punjab, 2012 INSC 296 :
    [2012] 7 SCR 91; Hanumant v. The State of Madhya Pradesh,
    1952 INSC 41 : [1952] 1 SCR 1091 – referred to.

                                List of Acts
    Penal Code, 1860; Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.

                             List of Keywords
    Extra-judicial confessions; Murder of infant son; Infant child;
    Circumstantial evidence; Five golden principles; Complete chain
    not formed; Strangulation; Asphyxia; Throttling; Guilt not established
    beyond reasonable doubt; Motive; Weak motive; Motive absent;
    Motive not established; Cold-blooded; Natural instinct of a mother
    of an infant child; Subsequent conduct; Alternative explanation;
    Alleged murder weapon; Dupatta; Relevant witness; Non-interested
    witness; Non-examination of relevant witness; Adverse inference
    against prosecution; Acquittal.

                            Case Arising From
    CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal No.
    582 of 2013
    From the Judgment and Order dated 11.12.2009 of the High Court
    of Himachal Pradesh at Shimla in CRLA No. 446 of 2007
[2025] 8 S.C.R.                                                             1467

                Neelam Kumari v. The State of Himachal Pradesh


                              Appearances for Parties
       Adv. for the Appellant:
       Vivek Sharma.
       Advs. for the Respondent:
       Muhammad Ali Khan, Omar Hoda, Ms. Eesha Bakshi, Kamran
       Khan, Arjun Sharma, Ms. Jayanti Singh, Ms. Gurbani Bhatia,
       Abishek Jebaraj.

                       Judgment / Order of the Supreme Court

                                    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 complainant
       and husband of the appellant, was married to Nirmala 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



1    For short, ‘the IPC’
1468                                                      [2025] 8 S.C.R.

                        Supreme Court Reports


     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 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 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
[2025] 8 S.C.R.                                                         1469

              Neelam Kumari v. The State of Himachal Pradesh


      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 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 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


2    2012 INSC 209
1470                                                          [2025] 8 S.C.R.

                             Supreme Court Reports


              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 Bengal 3,
    Pancho vs. State of Haryana4 and Jagroop Singh vs. State of
    Punjab 5. 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 evidence
              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


3   2011 INSC 415
4   2011 INSC 773
5   2012 INSC 296
6   2022 INSC 629
7   For short, ‘the Cr.PC’
[2025] 8 S.C.R.                                                      1471

              Neelam Kumari v. The State of Himachal Pradesh


      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.
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
    Pradesh 9 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 consistent with the
             innocence of the accused and must show that in all human
             probability the act must have been done by the accused.


8    2024 INSC 488
9    1952 INSC 41
10   1984 INSC 121
1472                                                     [2025] 8 S.C.R.

                        Supreme Court Reports


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 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.
[2025] 8 S.C.R.                                                            1473

              Neelam Kumari v. The State of Himachal Pradesh


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.
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


11   2020 INSC 563
1474                                                       [2025] 8 S.C.R.

                                  Supreme Court Reports


              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 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.

      Result of the case: Appeal allowed.




      †
          Headnotes prepared by: Divya Pandey




12   Babu v. State of Kerala (2010) 9 SCC 189