A hostile witness’s acknowledgment of a police statement is not substantive evidence of guilt.

The prosecution alleged that the appellant killed Ramya, who was pregnant, at her residence on 1 June 2013.

The Sessions Court convicted him under Sections 302 and 316 of the IPC and imposed life imprisonment and ten years’ rigorous imprisonment, respectively.

At trial, the prosecution’s principal witnesses, including the house owner who had given the complaint, did not support its case.

The prosecution also relied on the appellant’s confession and the recovery of a knife; forensic evidence did not establish a blood group linking the appellant or the weapon to the crime.

The appellant appealed under Section 374 Cr.P.C., challenging the sufficiency and legal quality of the evidence.

Whether the evidence of PW1, who turned hostile and acknowledged only having made a statement to the police, constituted substantive evidence sufficient to implicate the appellant

Whether PW7’s evidence concerning the confession and the recovery of the knife, absent corroborative forensic evidence, was sufficient to sustain the convictions

The appeal was brought under Section 374 Cr.P.C. against convictions under Sections 302 and 316 IPC.

The Court applied the evidentiary principles that a statement made to police is not substantive evidence merely because a witness acknowledges making it, and that a confession to police cannot, by itself, support a conviction; its evidentiary use is limited to discovery of a fact.

A recovery is of limited value where the alleged connection to the offence is not established by forensic evidence.

The judgment cites no precedent or specific provision of the Evidence Act.

PW1’s evidence in court did not implicate the appellant; her acknowledgment, in response to the prosecutor’s suggestion, that she had made a statement to police could not substitute for substantive evidence given on oath.

The Court considered PW7’s account to indicate that the appellant was kept at the police station and that the confession was extracted there.

It therefore treated the confession as unreliable, except insofar as it related to discovery.

The knife recovery did not provide adequate corroboration because no bloodstain was established and the serology report was inconclusive.

With no other evidence connecting the appellant to the offence, the convictions could not stand.

It directed that he be released forthwith unless required in another lawful case and that any fine paid be refunded.