KALINGA @ KUSHAL versus STATE OF KARNATAKA BY POLICE INSPECTOR HUBLI

Citation: [2024] 2 S.C.R. 391 · Decided: 20-02-2024 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: BELA M. TRIVEDI

Cited by 1 judgment(s) · cites 6 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

* Author
[2024] 2 S.C.R. 391 : 2024 INSC 124
Kalinga @ Kushal 
v. 
State of Karnataka By Police Inspector Hubli  
(Criminal Appeal No. 622 of 2013)
20 February 2024
[Bela M. Trivedi and Satish Chandra Sharma,* JJ.]
Issue for Consideration
Whether the extra judicial confession of the appellant-accused 
was admissible, credible and sufficient for his conviction thereon 
for the murder of his brother-PW-1’s son; whether the testimony 
of PW-1 could be termed as reliable and trustworthy and; whether 
the chain of circumstantial evidence was complete and consistent 
for arriving at the conclusion of guilt.
Headnotes
Evidence – Extra judicial confession – Evidentiary value – 
Case based on circumstantial evidence – Trial Court acquitted 
all the accused persons – Appeal against acquittal – High 
Court reversed the acquittal of the appellant and convicted 
him largely based on the extra judicial confession allegedly 
made by him before PW-1 – Correctness:
Held: Extra judicial confession is a weak type of evidence and 
is generally used as a corroborative link to lend credibility to the 
other evidence on record – It must be accepted with great care 
and caution – If it is not supported by other evidence on record, 
it fails to inspire confidence and shall not be treated as a strong 
piece of evidence for the purpose of arriving at the conclusion of 
guilt – The extent of acceptability of an extra judicial confession 
depends on the trustworthiness of the witness before whom it is 
given and the circumstances in which it was given – Prosecution 
must establish that a confession was indeed made by the accused, 
it was voluntary in nature and the contents of the confession 
were true – In the present case, the extra judicial confession 
is essentially based on the deposition of PW-1, the father of 
the deceased whose testimony is fatal to the prosecution case 
on multiple parameters – The doubtful existence of the extra 
392
[2024] 2 S.C.R.
Digital Supreme Court Reports
judicial confession, unnatural prior and subsequent conduct of 
PW-1, recovery of dead body in the presence of an unreliable 
witness PW-2, contradictions regarding arrest, testimony of the 
witnesses in support of the last seen theory etc. are some of the 
inconsistencies which strike at the root of the prosecution case 
– There exist serious doubts regarding the identity of the dead 
body recovered from the well – Testimony of PW-1 not trustworthy 
and reliable – Evidence on record fails the test laid down for the 
acceptability of circumstantial evidence – Trial Court appreciated 
the evidence in a comprehensive sense, High Court reversed 
the view without arriving at any finding of perversity or illegality 
therein – It took a cursory view of the matter and merely arrived at 
a different conclusion on re-appreciation of evidence – Anomaly of 
having two reasonably possible views in a matter is to be resolved 
in favour of the accused – After acquittal, the presumption of 
innocence in favour of the accused gets reinforced – High Court 
erred in reversing the acquittal – Impugned judgment set aside – 
Order of Trial Court restored, appellant acquitted. [Paras 14-16, 
25-27 and 30]
Appeal against acquittal – Exercise of appellate powers by 
High Court:
Held: High Court, in exercise of appellate powers, may re-appreciate 
the entire evidence – However, reversal of an order of acquittal is 
not to be based on mere existence of a different view or a mere 
difference of opinion – To permit so would be in violation of the 
two views theory – In order to reverse an order of acquittal in 
appeal, it is essential to arrive at a finding that the order of the 
Trial Court was perverse or illegal; or that the Trial Court did not 
fully appreciate the evidence on record; or that the view of the 
Trial Court was not a possible view. [Para 25]
Evidence – Extra judicial confession – Standard of proof:
Held: The standard required for proving an extra judicial confession 
to the satisfaction of the Court is on the higher side and the 
essential ingredients must be established beyond any reasonable 
doubt – The standard becomes even higher when the entire case 
of the prosecution necessarily rests on the extra judicial confession. 
[Para 15]
Evidence – Circumstantial evidence – “Panchsheel” Principles:
[2024] 2 S.C.R. 
393
Kalinga @ Kushal v. State of Karnataka By Police Inspector Hubli  
Held: Essentially, circumstantial evidence comes into picture 
when there is absence of

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