Kalinga @ Kushal vs. State of Karnataka by Police Inspector, Hubli
Background
This Supreme Court case arose from the murder of a child, the son of PW-1, allegedly by his uncle, Kalinga @ Kushal. The appellant was initially acquitted by the Trial Court, which found the evidence insufficient. However, the High Court reversed the acquittal and convicted the appellant, relying primarily on an extra-judicial confession and the recovery of the child’s body at the appellant’s instance.
Key Legal Issues
Whether the extra-judicial confession made by the appellant was admissible, credible, and sufficient for conviction.
Whether the testimony of PW-1 (the deceased child’s father) was reliable.
Whether the circumstantial evidence formed a complete and consistent chain pointing to the appellant’s guilt.
Findings and Analysis
Evidentiary Value of Extra-Judicial Confession: The Supreme Court reiterated that extra-judicial confessions are a weak form of evidence and should be treated with caution. Such confessions can only serve as corroborative evidence and must be supported by other reliable evidence. The credibility of the witness before whom the confession is made and the circumstances of the confession are crucial factors.
Assessment of Prosecution Evidence: The Court found that the prosecution’s case rested almost entirely on the alleged confession to PW-1. However, the testimony of PW-1 was found to be unreliable and riddled with inconsistencies. There was no independent corroboration of the confession, and the chain of circumstantial evidence was incomplete. The recovery of the body, while significant, was not sufficient on its own to establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt in the absence of credible supporting evidence.
Trial and Appellate Court Reasoning: The Trial Court had acquitted all accused, citing lack of trustworthy evidence. The High Court, in appeal, convicted only the appellant, relying on the confession and the recovery of the body. The Supreme Court found that the High Court erred in overturning the acquittal, as the evidence only raised suspicion and did not meet the threshold for conviction.
Judgment
The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the High Court’s conviction, and restored the acquittal by the Trial Court. The Court directed that the appellant be released forthwith if not required in any other case.
Significance
The judgment reaffirms that extra-judicial confessions, unless corroborated by independent and reliable evidence, are insufficient for conviction.
It underscores the principle that suspicion, however strong, cannot substitute for proof beyond reasonable doubt in criminal trials.
The decision highlights the need for courts to exercise caution in reversing acquittals, especially when based on weak or uncorroborated evidence.
Citation:
Kalinga @ Kushal v. State of Karnataka by Police Inspector, Hubli, [2024] 2 S.C.R. 391 : 2024 INSC 124.
RELATED Blog
0 comments