Conviction Based Solely on Inadmissible Confessional Statement and Suspicion in Absence of Corroborative Evidence Is Unsustainable.

The son of the first informant (P.W.-1) went missing on May 25, 2012, and was later found dead in a closed factory, having been strangulated with an angocha.

The FIR initially named three individuals (Bhola, Adal Singh, and Ajab Singh) based on suspicion, but they were exonerated by police.

The appellant, Karuwa (alias Kali Charan), was subsequently made an accused based on a statement by Rajveer (P.W.-2), who allegedly claimed to have seen the appellant with the deceased.

The Trial Court convicted the appellant under Section 302 of the IPC on January 14, 2016, primarily relying on a confessional statement made to the police and the "last seen" theory.

1. Whether the prosecution proved the guilt of the accused beyond a reasonable doubt based on circumstantial evidence.

2. Whether a conviction can be sustained solely on the basis of a confessional statement made to the police under the Indian Evidence Act.

3. Whether the testimony of a hostile witness and inconsistencies in the informant’s statement are sufficient to overturn a conviction.

Section 302 of the IPC regarding punishment for murder.

Section 25 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, which mandates that a confession made to a police officer cannot be proved against a person accused of any offence.

In cases of circumstantial evidence, "suspicion cannot take the place of proof," and the chain of circumstances must be so complete as to leave no reasonable ground for a conclusion consistent with the innocence of the accused.

The Court observed significant inconsistencies in the testimony of P.W.-1 (the father), noting contradictions between the FIR and his court statement regarding who searched for the deceased and the identity of the suspects.

P.W.-2 (Rajveer), the sole witness for the "last seen" theory, turned hostile and denied ever seeing the appellant with the deceased, thereby breaking the link of circumstantial evidence.

The Court held that the Trial Court committed a "grave error" by treating a police confession as admissible evidence, which is expressly barred by Section 25 of the Evidence Act.

Since the other prosecution witnesses were merely formal and provided no tangible evidence linking the appellant to the crime, the chain of circumstances was non-existent.

The Court set aside the Trial Court’s judgment dated January 14, 2016, allowed the appeal, and acquitted Karuwa Alias Kali Charan of all charges under Section 302 IPC. It ordered the immediate release of the appellant, provided he was not required in any other case.