Such Extreme Act Runs Completely Contrary To Natural Instinct Of Mother: Supreme Court Acquits Woman Convicted For Infant’s Murder

The Criminal Appeal was filed before the Apex Court, challenging the impugned judgment of the Himachal Pradesh High Court whereby the conviction of the appellant under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 for murdering her infant son was confirmed. She was sentenced to life imprisonment by the Trial Court.

The Division Bench of Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra and Justice Augustine George Masih held, “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 fatherdefies 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.”

AOR Vivek Sharma represented the Appellant, while Advocate Muhammad Ali Khan represented the Respondent.

Factual Background

The complainant Nikku Ram 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, the complainant married the appellant and started residing with her in a newly constructed house. However, the complainant provided a separate residence to his first wife in his ancestral village. In 2005, the appellant gave birth to a male child. The appellant used to threaten the complainant that if she was compelled to visit the ancestral village she would kill her son. When the complainant’s father died, the appellant did not visit the ancestral village.

The complainant along with his brother went to the market to purchase some grocery items to perform the post-death rituals of his father. When the complainant returned to his house, he did not find his wife and child there. He received a telephone call informing him that his son was unwell. The child, who appeared to have been strangulated, was taken to a hospital where the doctor declared that the child was dead. Extra-judicial confession admitting the killing of her son was alleged to have been made by the appellant before her husband and three other people. However, the appellant pleaded not guilty. The Trial Court imposed a sentence of life imprisonment on her. Aggrieved by the dismissal of the appeal, the appellant approached the Apex Court.

Reasoning

The Bench, at the outset, noted that the conviction of the appellant rested significantly on alleged extra-judicial confessions made to her husband, Ward Member, Pradhan of Gram Panchayat Nand, and one Umrawati (PW-5). “It is settled law that extra-judicial confessions are generally considered weak evidence and should be corroborated by other, independent evidence”, the Bench said while referring to the judgment in Sahadevan & Anr. vs. State (2012).

The Court found that during examination of the appellant under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, 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, 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…”, it said.

Noting that the case of the prosecution rested heavily on circumstantial evidence, the Bench also mentioned the five ‘golden principles’ for evaluating such evidence. Coming to the facts of the case, the Bench noticed that the medical evidence suggested 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 introduced considerable uncertainty about when and how the fatal injuries occurred. “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”, it added.

It was also noticed by the Bench that the dupatta was never shown to the Doctor who conducted the postmortem examination. This created a fundamental disconnect in the chain of evidence. The finding that the cause of death “could be due to throttling” was also held to be tentative. Coming to the appellant’s conduct it was noticed that rather than attempting to conceal the crime or flee, the appellant proceeded to village Nand to seek medical assistance for the child. Specifically, she took the child to their tenant. “Logically, such behaviour is more consistent with innocence than guilt”, it mentioned.

The Bench also explained, “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.” Thus, holding that the prosecution failed to establish the guilt of the appellant beyond a reasonable doubt, the Bench allowed the appeal and set aside the conviction of the appellant.

Cause Title:Neelam Kumari v. The State of Himachal Pradesh (Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 1013)

Appearance

Appellant: Jail Petition, AOR Vivek Sharma , Amicus Curiae Vivek Sharma, Advocate Vijay Kumar Sharma

Respondent: Advocates Muhammad Ali Khan, Omar Hoda, Eesha Bakshi, Kamran Khan, Arjun Sharma, Jayanti Singh, Gurbani Bhatia, AOR Abishek Jebaraj

Click here to read/download Judgment