KALA @ CHANDRAKALA versus STATE THROUGH INSPECTOR OF POLICE

Citation: [2016] 3 S.C.R. 797 · Decided: 12-08-2016 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: J.S. KHEHAR · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

[2016] 3 S.C.R. 797 
KALA @ CHANDRAKALA 
v. 
STATE THROUGH INSPECTOR OF POLICE 
(Criminal Appeal No. 1791 of2010) 
AUGUST 12,2016 
[JAGDISH SINGH KHEHAR AND ARUN MISHRA, JJ.] 
Penal Code, 1860 - s.302 rlw s.34 and s.201 - Murder of 
appellants husband - Death allegedly caused by strangulation with 
a saree - Circumstantial evidence - Extra-judicial confession -
Conviction of appellant and her father by trial court - High Court 
affirmed the conviction of appellant but acquitted her father 
extending him benefit of doubt - Extra-judicial confession allegedly 
made by appellant to PW4 - Recovery of a motor bike (moped) and 
nylon saree (allegedly used in the offence) - On appeal, held:· In 
cases based upon circumstantial evidence the chain of circumstances 
should be complete to fasten the guilt on the accused ..., However, 
prosecution failed to complete the chain of circumstances and to 
prove commission of offence by the appellant beyond periphery of 
doubt - As regards extra-judicial confession, which is a weak kind 
of evidence, it is most unlikely that the appellant woiild have made 
confession to an inimical person like PW-./, with whom she did not 
share a good relationship - Same does not impire confidence in 
absence of corroboration - Recovery evideiice not proved to be 
related to commission of offence - Appellant entitled to benefit of 
doubt and thus acquitted - Evidence- Circumstantial evidence. 
Evidence -
Confession -
Extra-judicial confession ~ 
Appreciation of - Held: It is a weak piece of evidence -
Before 
acting upon it, the Court must ensure that the same impires 
confidence and is corrohoraled by olher prosecution evidence -
Confession made to an inimical person in absence of corroboration 
ll'ith other evidence 011 record, not .wife to act upon in the facts and 
circumstances of the present case. 
Allowing the appeal, the Court 
HELD: 1.1. The present case depends upon the 
797 
'A 
B 
c 
D 
E. 
F 
G 
H 
798 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[20 I 6] 3 S.C.R. 
circumstantial evidence and the extra-judicial confession made 
by the appellant to PW-4, sister of the deceased. It is trite law 
that the chain of circumstances should be complete to fasten 
the guilt on the accused. [Para 5) [801-E) 
1.2. Apparently the accused did not have good relationship 
with PW-4. Making confession to such an inimical 1>erson is most 
unlikely. When the witness had gone in search of the deceased 
to the house of the accused it is most unlikely that the 
confessional statement would be made to her readily. It is not 
that the appellant had gone to the house of PW-4 to make the 
confession. [Para 61 [802-B-C] 
2. Extra-judicial confession is a weak piece of evidence. 
Before acting upon it the Court must ensure that the same 
inspires confidenl'C and it is corroborated by other prosecution 
evidence. [Para 71 (802-0-EJ 
Sahadel'a!l and Am: v. Stale of Tamil Nadu (2012) 6 
SCC 403:2012 (4) SCR 366; Balll'inder SinKh i•. State 
of Punjab 1995 Supp (4) SCC 259: 1995 (5) Suppl. 
SCR 10 ; Pakkirisa111y v. State of Ta111i! Nadu (1997) 8 
SCC 158; Kavita '" State o{ Tamil Nadu (1998) 6 SCC 
108: 1998 (3) SCR 902; State of Rajastha11 v. Raja 
R11111 (2003) 8 sec 180:2003 (2) Suppl. SCR 445; 
Aloke Nath Dul/av. Stale of West Be11gal (2007) 12 SCC 
230:2006 (10) Suppl. SCR 662; Sa11.1·ar Cha11d i·. State 
of Rqjasthan (2010) 10 SCC 604: 2010 (12) SCR 583; 
Rmneshbhai Clw11d11hhai Rat hod 1'. S!a/e of G11jarat 
(2009) 5 SCC 740; Vijay Slumkar r. Stale of liarwma 
(2015) 12 SCC 6-14: 2015 (9) SCR 977 - relied on. 
3. In the circumstances of the case, the confession made to 
PW-4 docs not inspire confidence. She was ·not having good 
relationship with accused and confession made to her is not 
corroborated by other evidence on record, hence, it would not 
be safe to act upon it in the facts and circumstances of the case. 
JPara 8.1 J803-BJ 
4. The prosecution has not been able to establish that the 
death was caused by strangulating the deceased and the piece of 
nylon saree was used to cause the death as the Doctor, did not 
KALA @ CHANDRAKALA v. STAfE THROUGH INSPECTOR 
OF POLICE 
mention the cause of death in the post-mortem report. Hence, 
recovery of the piece of nylon saree is of no value as the 
prosecution ·has not been able to link the same with the 
commission of the offence. [Para 10) [804-C] 
5. In the instant case, particularly when the body has not 
been recovered at the instance of the accused and 

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.