Extra-Judicial Confession Lacks Credibility, Unsafe To Sustain Conviction On Weak Circumstantial Evidence: SC Orders Acquittal Of Murder Convict
The appeal by special leave was directed against the judgment of the Bombay High Court upholding the accused's conviction under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1861 (IPC).

The Supreme Court quashed the conviction of a man booked for allegedly murdering his wife after noting that the extra-judicial confession made before the witnesses lacked credibility and the circumstantial evidence was weak.
The appeal by special leave was directed against the judgment of the Bombay High Court upholding the accused appellant’s conviction under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1861 (IPC). He was sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for life.
The Divison Bench comprising Justice Abhay S. Oka & Justice Ujjal Bhuyan said, “If the evidence relating to extra-judicial confession is found credible after being tested on the touchstone of credibility and acceptability, it can solely form the basis of conviction. The requirement of corroboration is a matter of prudence and not an invariable rule of law.”
AOR Nirmal Chopra represented the Appellants while Senior Advocate Sanjay Kharde represented the Respondents.
Factual Background
The appellant and the deceased Manda were in a live-in relationship. Both of them were living in a chawl. PW-1 is the informant who is the owner of the chawl in which the accused used to stay as the tenant along with his wife and son. The Appellant informed the owner that his wife had expired and that he was going to her parents’ house to inform them. The Appellant told the brother of the deceased (PW-3) in the presence of Shankar PW-6, Pandhari PW-5 and Chanda Bai PW-4 that there was a quarrel between him and Manda following which he had assaulted Manda who succumbed to the injuries.
When the landlord opened the room, he saw Manda lying dead with multiple bleeding injuries. The appellant told the landlord that the deceased Manda had suspected that he (appellant) was having illicit relations with some other woman. This resulted in a quarrel in the course of which the appellant assaulted Manda with the help of a grinding stone and a stick.
A First Information Report came to be lodged before the police station whereafter offence under Section 302 IPC was registered against the appellant. The Trial Court convicted the appellant under Section 302 IPC and sentenced him to undergo RI for life. The same was affirmed by the High Court. Aggrieved thereby the appellant approached the Apex Court.
Reasoning
Going through the evidence of the four witnesses, the Bench noted that they had deposed that the accused had stated before the informant (PW-1) and PW-3 that he quarreled with Manda because of which he assaulted her with a grinding stone and a stick following which she died. The Bench explained that extra-judicial confession of an offence made by the accused before a witness is one of the several instances of circumstantial evidence. There are other circumstances, such as, the theory of last seen together; conduct of the accused before or immediately after the incident; human blood being found on the clothes or person of the accused which matches with that of the accused; leading to discovery, recovery of weapon etc.
“As we know, circumstantial evidence is not direct to the point in issue but consists of evidence of various other facts which are so closely associated with the fact in issue that taken together, they form a chain of circumstances from which the existence of the principal fact can be legally inferred or presumed.The chain must be complete and each fact forming part of the chain must be proved.”, it added.
Elucidating further on the law relating to extra-judicial confession, the Bench said, “Extra-judicial confession can be relied upon and conviction can be based thereon if the evidence about the confession comes from a witness who appear to be unbiased, not even remotely inimical to the accused, and in respect of whom nothing is brought out which may tend to indicate that he may have a motive of attributing an untruthful statement to the accused.”
On a perusal of the evidence on record, the Bench noted that the accused was not in a fit state of mind when he made the extra-judicial confession before PW-3. There were no blood stains on the clothes worn by the accused and no blood samples matching with the blood of the deceased. While various articles were seized from the place of occurrence, there was no recovery of any blood-stained clothes. There was no evidence that the grinding stone was recovered or that there were any blood stains on the recovered stick.
The Bench also noticed the non-reaction of the brother of the deceased when the accused confessed before him that he had killed his sister Manda.Moreover, according to the testimony of the brother, he had stated before the police that the accused had told him that he had killed Manda but the same was not recorded by the police in his statement under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr.P.C.). Similarly, this was the case with another witness. It was thus evident that not only the extrajudicial confession of the accused lacked credibility, but the testimonies of the other two witnesses suffered from material omission. Their statements made under Section 161 Cr.P.C. were at variance with their evidence in court regarding the confession made by the accused.
The Bench thus held, “No doubt there is a strong suspicion against the appellant and the needle of suspicion qua the death of Manda points towards him but as is the settled jurisprudence of this country, suspicion howsoever strong cannot take the place of hard evidence. The evidence on the basis of which the prosecution seeks conviction of the accused i.e. extra-judicial confession made before the above witnesses lack credibility and hence cannot be relied upon. Besides, the evidence suffers from material contradiction. Therefore, it would be wholly unsafe to sustain the conviction of the appellant based on such weak circumstantial evidence which on the top of it lack credibility.”
Granting the benefit of doubt to the accused, the Bench set aside the conviction and sentence of the appellant and ordered him to be released.
Cause Title: Ramu Appa Mahapatar Appellant v. The State of Maharashtra (Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 147)
Appearance:
Appellants: AOR Dr. Nirmal Chopra
Respondents: Senior Advocate Sanjay Kharde, Adovcacte Siddharth Dharmadhikari, AOR Aaditya Aniruddha Pande