The Supreme Court of India, in Nagamma @ Nagarathna & Ors. v. State of Karnataka (2025 INSC 1135), examined the conviction of three accused under Section 302 IPC (corresponding to Section 103 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023) read with Section 34 IPC [now Section 3(5) BNS]. The matter revolved around whether the prosecution had successfully established an unbroken chain of circumstantial evidence sufficient to sustain a murder conviction.
The Court re-examined key principles of criminal law, focusing on circumstantial evidence, the admissibility of extra-judicial confessions, the application of Section 106 of the Evidence Act (corresponding to Section 109 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023), and the validity of recoveries under Section 27 of the Evidence Act (Section 23 BSA). Ultimately, the Supreme Court set aside the conviction, acquitting the accused and reiterating that suspicion, however strong, cannot replace proof beyond a reasonable doubt.
Title of the Case: Nagamma @ Nagarathna & Ors. v. State of Karnataka
Citation: Criminal Appeal No. 425 of 2014
Court: Supreme Court of India
Bench: Justice K. Vinod Chandran and Justice K.V. Viswanathan
Judgment Date: 22 September 2025
Facts of the Case
The Alleged Loan and Dispute
- The case arose out of a financial dispute between two policemen.
- Accused No. 1 (A1), a police constable, allegedly borrowed ₹1 lakh from the deceased, another police driver, and failed to repay it.
- The deceased reportedly made repeated demands, leading to hostility between the two families.
Events of 10–11 March 2006
- On the night of 10 March 2006, A2 (wife of A1) allegedly lured the deceased to her house under the pretext of repaying the loan.
- At around 2 a.m. on 11 March 2006, the deceased was attacked: chili powder was thrown into his eyes, and he was hacked to death with two choppers by A2, her brother (A3), and her brother-in-law (A4).
- After sunrise, A2 allegedly went to the police station and confessed to the crime. The police recovered the body from her residence.
Prosecution Evidence
- Witnesses: 24 witnesses were examined, including police officers, family members, neighbours, and medical experts.
- Documents and Material Objects: 33 documents and 16 material objects were exhibited, including two choppers.
Key Points:
Dead body found in A2’s house.
A2’s alleged confession before the SHO.
Recovery of a chopper based on disclosure by A4.
Extra-judicial confessions to family members of the deceased.
Defence
- A1 set up a perfect alibi as he was on night duty elsewhere, corroborated by another police officer.
- The defence argued that witnesses were unreliable, hostile, or contradictory, and that the chain of circumstances was incomplete.
Trial Court’s Decision
The trial court acquitted A1 (instigation charge under Section 109 IPC) due to his alibi.
A2, A3, and A4 were convicted under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC and sentenced to life imprisonment.
The court relied on:
- Presence of the body in A2’s house.
- A2’s extra-judicial confession.
- Recovery of a chopper at A4’s instance.
- Motive arising from unpaid debt.
High Court’s Decision
- The Karnataka High Court affirmed the conviction.
- It held that despite witnesses turning hostile, sufficient circumstantial evidence existed.
The High Court emphasised:
- The recovery of the body from A2’s house.
- A2’s confession to the SHO and the deceased’s wife.
- Recovery of the weapon at A4’s instance.
- Absence of any explanation by the accused under Section 106 of the Evidence Act.
Issues Before the Supreme Court
- Whether a conviction under Section 302/34 IPC could be sustained when A1 was acquitted, and the case was based solely on circumstantial evidence.
- Whether extra-judicial confessions made inside a police station could be relied upon.
- Whether the recovery of the weapon at A4’s instance was valid under Section 27 of the Evidence Act.
- Whether the motive (alleged loan dispute) was proved.
- Whether the presence of the body in A2’s house, by itself, was sufficient to establish guilt.
Arguments
Appellants
- Since A1 was acquitted, the benefit should extend to A2–A4 as well, as all were charged under Section 302/34 IPC.
- Motive was not established; witnesses contradict each other.
- Extra-judicial confessions made in police custody are inadmissible under Sections 25 and 26 of the Evidence Act.
- Recovery of the weapon was doubtful and unsupported by independent witnesses.
- Many prosecution witnesses, including alleged eye-witnesses, turned hostile.
Respondent (State of Karnataka)
- A dead body was found in A2’s house, which was not explained by the accused.
- A2 voluntarily confessed before the SHO and the deceased’s wife.
- Recovery of the chopper at A4’s instance corroborates the prosecution’s case.
- Motive (loan dispute) was supported by the testimonies of relatives of the deceased.
- The chain of circumstances was sufficient to establish guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.
Supreme Court’s Analysis
1. Nature of Evidence
- The Court noted that the case rested entirely on circumstantial evidence as no direct eyewitness account was available.
- Hostility of crucial witnesses (alleged tenants PW-20 and PW-22, neighbours, and relatives) weakened the prosecution’s case significantly.
2. Motive
- PW-18 (wife of deceased) did not support the prosecution’s claim of a loan dispute.
- PW-11 and PW-12 (mother and brother of the deceased) claimed knowledge of the loan, but their reliability was doubtful as they were not on cordial terms with A1.
The Court held that the motive was not proved. While motive is not always necessary when direct evidence exists, in a circumstantial case, it becomes important.
3. Presence of Body in A2’s House
- Conflicting testimonies regarding where the body was first seen—some said at the house, others at the hospital.
- Inquest report, witnesses contradicted each other.
- The Court doubted whether the body was conclusively proved to be found in A2’s house.
- Even if proved, the mere presence of the body in A2’s house was insufficient to hold her guilty without corroborating evidence.
4. Extra-Judicial Confessions
- A2’s confessions were made inside the police station to the SHO (PW-15), the Sentry (PW-17), and relatives of the deceased.
- The Court categorically held these confessions inadmissible under Sections 25 and 26 of the Evidence Act.
- Extra-judicial confessions made in custody to non-magisterial persons cannot be relied upon.
5. Recovery of Weapon
- Recovery of the chopper (MO-16) was based on disclosure by A3 and A4.
- Independent witnesses to recovery turned hostile.
The Court found the recovery unreliable because:
- Disclosure statements were not clear.
- It was uncertain who first disclosed the location.
- No forensic link was established between the recovered weapon and the crime.
6. Medical Evidence
- Post-mortem confirmed homicidal death due to multiple chop wounds.
- But medical evidence only established death; it did not link the accused with the crime.
7. Section 106 of the Evidence Act
- The Court emphasised that Section 106 does not relieve the prosecution of its burden of proof.
- Absence of explanation by the accused cannot substitute for a lack of cogent evidence.
8. Credibility of Witnesses
- Many prosecution witnesses turned hostile or gave contradictory statements.
- The Court found no credible witness who firmly connected the accused with the murder.
Judgment
The Supreme Court held that:
- Motive was not proved.
- Extra-judicial confessions inside a police station were inadmissible.
- The recovery of the weapon was unreliable.
- The presence of the body in A2’s house was doubtful and, even if true, insufficient to convict.
- The prosecution failed to establish a complete chain of circumstances leading to guilt.
Accordingly, the conviction of A2, A3, and A4 under Section 302/34 IPC was set aside. They were acquitted and ordered to be released unless wanted in other cases.
Key Legal Principles Reaffirmed
- Circumstantial Evidence: Conviction can be based on circumstantial evidence only when the chain is complete, leaving no reasonable doubt.
- Motive: Though not indispensable, motive assumes significance in cases based solely on circumstantial evidence.
- Confessions under the Evidence Act: Sections 25 and 26 strictly bar confessions to police officers or made in custody unless before a Magistrate.
- Section 106 Evidence Act: Burden on the accused arises only when the prosecution establishes a prima facie case; mere absence of explanation cannot prove guilt.
- Recovery under Section 27 Evidence Act: Disclosure statements must be precise and corroborated; simultaneous disclosures are inherently doubtful.
Conclusion
The Supreme Court’s ruling in Nagamma @ Nagarathna & Ors. v. State of Karnataka is a textbook reaffirmation of the principles of criminal jurisprudence. The Court emphasised that the liberty of individuals cannot be curtailed based on suspicion, hostility-driven testimony, or defective investigation. The decision highlights the importance of adhering to evidentiary rules, particularly in cases involving circumstantial evidence. It also highlights judicial vigilance against the misuse of extra-judicial confessions and improper reliance on Section 106 of the Evidence Act.
By acquitting the accused, the Court reiterated that a criminal conviction requires proof beyond a reasonable doubt, and any gaps in the evidentiary chain must enure to the benefit of the accused.