Conviction cannot rest solely on uncorroborated hostile-witness testimony and an extra-judicial confession.

The appellant, Surendra, was convicted by the Special Judge (SC/ST Act), Mathura, under Sections 302 and 201 IPC for allegedly murdering his five-year-old daughter, Lakshmi, on 11 April 2017 and throwing her body into a well near Village Aajnaukh on the Barsana–Chhata Road.

The prosecution case was that the child’s body was recovered on 12 April 2017 and that the appellant subsequently made an extra-judicial confession to his wife, PW-1 Phoolwati.

The FIR was lodged after approximately one month. During trial, five prosecution witnesses were examined; all turned hostile, although PW-1 supported the prosecution case in examination-in-chief but contradicted it in cross-examination.

The trial court nevertheless convicted the appellant and sentenced him to life imprisonment under Section 302 IPC and one year’s rigorous imprisonment under Section 201 IPC. The appellant challenged the conviction in the present appeal.

Whether the appellant’s conviction could be sustained solely on the partial testimony of PW-1, a hostile witness, in the absence of reliable corroboration?

Whether the alleged extra-judicial confession made by the appellant to his wife was sufficiently credible and corroborated to sustain a conviction for murder and causing disappearance of evidence?

Whether the prosecution proved the charges under Sections 302 and 201 IPC beyond reasonable doubt?

The Court applied Sections 302 and 201 IPC, concerning murder and causing disappearance of evidence, respectively.

It held, relying on Neeraj Dutta v. State (Govt. of N.C.T. of Delhi, AIR Online 2022 SC 1160), that the testimony of a hostile witness is not wholly inadmissible, but the supporting portion must be corroborated by reliable evidence.

Following Ram Swaroop v. State of Rajasthan, AIR 2004 SC 2243, the Court held that conviction cannot rest on uncorroborated testimony of a hostile witness.

On extra-judicial confession, the Court relied on Sansar Chand v. State of Rajasthan, (2010) 10 SCC 604; Narayan Singh v. State of M.P., AIR 1985 SC 1678; Balwinder Singh v. State of Punjab, 1995 Supp (4) SCC 259; Pakkirisamy v. State of T.N., (1997) 8 SCC 158; Kavita v. State of T.N., (1998) 6 SCC 108; and Sahadevan v. State of T.N., (2012) 6 SCC 403.

These authorities establish that an extra-judicial confession is a weak form of evidence, must be voluntary, truthful, cogent and confidence-inspiring, and ordinarily requires corroboration by a reliable chain of circumstances.

The High Court found that PW-1’s examination-in-chief supported the prosecution allegation that the appellant had confessed to killing Lakshmi and throwing her body into a well.

However, in cross-examination she denied the material allegations, stated that the FIR had been written by the police on a blank paper bearing her thumb impression, and specifically denied that the appellant had taken or killed the child.

Since all other prosecution witnesses had also turned hostile, there was no independent evidence corroborating the incriminating portion of PW-1’s testimony.

The alleged extra-judicial confession was therefore not proved as a reliable fact and did not satisfy the requirements of voluntariness, credibility and corroboration laid down in Sahadevan and the other precedents.

The trial court’s reliance solely on the uncorroborated examination-in-chief of PW-1 and the alleged confession was consequently held to be legally unsustainable.

The conviction and sentences imposed by the trial court were set aside, and the criminal appeal was allowed.

The appellant was acquitted of all charges and directed to be released forthwith, unless required in any other case.