KALA @ CHANDRAKALA versus STATE THROUGH INSPECTOR OF POLICE
[2016] 3 S.C.R. 797, Supreme Court of India, 2016
Outcome: Appeal(s) allowed (Granted)
Segment: Ratio
[2016] 3 S.C.R. 797 
KALA @ CHANDRAKALA 
v. 
STATE THROUGH INSPECTOR OF POLICE 
(Criminal Appeal No. 1791 of2010) 
AUGUST 12,2016 
[JAGDISH SINGH KHEHAR AND ARUN MISHRA, JJ.] 
Penal Code, 1860 - s.302 rlw s.34 and s.201 - Murder of 
appellants husband - Death allegedly caused by strangulation with 
a saree - Circumstantial evidence - Extra-judicial confession -
Conviction of appellant and her father by trial court - High Court 
affirmed the conviction of appellant but acquitted her father 
extending him benefit of doubt - Extra-judicial confession allegedly 
made by appellant to PW4 - Recovery of a motor bike (moped) and 
nylon saree (allegedly used in the offence) - On appeal, held:· In 
cases based upon circumstantial evidence the chain of circumstances 
should be complete to fasten the guilt on the accused ..., However, 
prosecution failed to complete the chain of circumstances and to 
prove commission of offence by the appellant beyond periphery of 
doubt - As regards extra-judicial confession, which is a weak kind 
of evidence, it is most unlikely that the appellant woiild have made 
confession to an inimical person like PW-./, with whom she did not 
share a good relationship - Same does not impire confidence in 
absence of corroboration - Recovery evideiice not proved to be 
related to commission of offence - Appellant entitled to benefit of 
doubt and thus acquitted - Evidence- Circumstantial evidence. 
Evidence -
Confession -
Extra-judicial confession ~ 
Appreciation
of - Held: It is a weak piece of evidence -
Before 
acting upon it, the Court must ensure that the same impires 
confidence and is corrohoraled by olher prosecution evidence -
Confession made to an inimical person in absence of corroboration 
ll'ith other evidence 011 record, not .wife to act upon in the facts and 
circumstances of the present case. 
Allowing the appeal, the Court 
HELD: 1.1. The present case depends upon the 
797 
'A 
B 
c 
D 
E. 
F 
G 
H
798 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[20 I 6] 3 S.C.R. 
circumstantial evidence and the extra-judicial confession made 
by the appellant to PW-4, sister of the deceased. It is trite law 
that the chain of circumstances should be complete to fasten 
the guilt on the accused. [Para 5) [801-E) 
1.2. Apparently the accused did not have good relationship 
with PW-4. Making confession to such an inimical 1>erson is most 
unlikely. When the witness had gone in search of the deceased 
to the house of the accused it is most unlikely that the 
confessional statement would be made to her readily. It is not 
that the appellant had gone to the house of PW-4 to make the 
confession. [Para 61 [802-B-C] 
2. Extra-judicial confession is a weak piece of evidence. 
Before acting upon it the Court must ensure that the same 
inspires confidenl'C and it is corroborated by other prosecution 
evidence. [Para 71 (802-0-EJ 
Sahadel'a!l and Am: v. Stale of Tamil Nadu (2012) 6 
SCC 403:2012 (4) SCR 366; Balll'inder SinKh i•. State 
of Punjab 1995 Supp (4) SCC 259: 1995 (5) Suppl. 
SCR 10 ; Pakkirisa111y v. State of Ta111i! Nadu (1997) 8 
SCC 158; Kavita '" State o{ Tamil Nadu (1998) 6 SCC 
108: 1998 (3) SCR 902; State of Rajastha11 v. Raja 
R11111 (2003) 8 sec 180:2003 (2) Suppl. SCR 445; 
Aloke Nath Dul/av. Stale of West Be11gal (2007) 12 SCC 
230:2006 (10) Suppl. SCR 662; Sa11.1·ar Cha11d i·. State 
of Rqjasthan (2010) 10 SCC 604: 2010 (12) SCR 583; 
Rmneshbhai Clw11d11hhai Rat hod 1'.
S!a/e of G11jarat 
(2009) 5 SCC 740; Vijay Slumkar r. Stale of liarwma 
(2015) 12 SCC 6-14: 2015 (9) SCR 977 - relied on. 
3. In the circumstances of the case, the confession made to 
PW-4 docs not inspire confidence. She was ·not having good 
relationship with accused and confession made to her is not 
corroborated by other evidence on record, hence, it would not 
be safe to act upon it in the facts and circumstances of the case. 
JPara 8.1 J803-BJ 
4. The prosecution has not been able to establish that the 
death was caused by strangulating the deceased and the piece of 
nylon saree was used to cause the death as the Doctor, did not
KALA @ CHANDRAKALA v. STAfE THROUGH INSPECTOR 
OF POLICE 
mention the cause of death in the post-mortem report. Hence, 
recovery of the piece of nylon saree is of no value as the 
prosecution ·has not been able to link the same with the 
commission of the offence. [Para 10) [804-C] 
5. In the instant case, particularly when the body has not 
been recovered at the instance of the accused and the recoveries 
of moped and piece of nylon sarec arc not proved to be 1·elated to 
commission of offence, the extra-judicial confession made by the 
ap1>ellnnt to PW-4 being pri111aji1cie unusual and douhtful and not 
corrohonitcd by other evidence un record, the .prosecution ·has 
failed to complete the chain of circumstances so as to fasten the 
guilt and to prove the commission of offence by the appellant 
beyond periphery of doubt. The father of appellant has also been 
extended benefit of donbt. As such, the appellant is entitled for 
benefit of doubt in view of the evidence which has been adduced 
by the prosecution. [Pnras 13 and 14) [804-H; 805-A-C] 
Case Law Reference 
2012 (4) SCR 366 
relied on 
Para 7 
1995 (5) Suppl. SCR 10 
relied on 
Para 7 
(1997) 8 sec 158 
relied on 
Para 7 
1998 (3) SCR 902 
relied on 
Para 7 
2003 (2) Suppl. SCR 445 
relied on 
Para 7 
2006 (IO) Su1lpl. SCR 662 
relied on 
Para 7 
2010 (12) SCR 583 
relied on 
Para 7 
(2009) 5 sec 140 
relied on 
Para 7 
2015 (9) SCR 977 
relied on 
Pura 7 
CRIMINALAPPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal No. 
1791
of2010. 
From the Judgment andOrdcr dated 24.06.2009 of the High Court 
of.Judicature at Madras, in Criminal App.:al No. l 022 of2007. · 
Sunil Fernandes. Puneeth K. G., Ms. Astha Sharma, P. Ramesh, 
Advs. for the AppeUant. 
799 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H
800 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
· [2016) 3 S:C.R. 
A 
M. Yogesh Kanna, Ms. Nithya, Advs. for the Respondent. 
The Judgment of the Cou1i was delivered by 
ARUN l\USHRA, J. I .The appellant is the wife of the 
deceased Murugesan. The prosecution has alleged that the appellant 
along with her father and nephe\~ committed murder of Murugesan on 
B . 17.5.2005 by strangulating him with a saree and placed his body under 
a bridge of canal. On 20.5.2005, on the basis of the information received 
from the Village Administrative Officer that a gunny bag is lying under 
LBP canal south near Sandhiyapurm, the complaint was registered. 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
1-1 
The body was found in a highly decomposed condition as such 
initially the identification of the person could not be·ascertained. On 
21.5.2005 Dr. Sivakumar P.W.20. performed the autopsy. Doctor was 
unable to ascertain the cause of death as the body was in a highly 
decomposed condition and it was opined· by him that there was no 
antemortem injury to hyoid bone. On 31.5.2005 Susheela, P. W. 4, sister 
of the dec~ased, lodged a complaint that her brother Murugesan was 
murdered by his wife, hi~ father-_in-la\v and nephew of wife. 
2. The trial court convicted .the appellant and her fath-er for 
commission of offence under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC and 
Section 20 I IPC and sentenced them to undergo imprisonment for life 
and imposed a fine of Rs.1,000/- and in default to undergo simple 
imprisonment for six moilths and also
to undergo one year simple 
imprisonment under Section 201 IPC. The appeal, preferred before the 
High Court, was allowed in respect of the father of the accused, but 
the conviction and sentence of the appellant has been affirmed. 
Aggrieved thereby the·-appeal has been preferred. 
3. It was submitted on behalf of the appellant that the chain of 
circumstances is not complete so as to fasten the guilt upon her. The 
confession made by the appellant to P.W.4 is not worthy of acceptance 
and made to police is inadmissible in evidence. There was no reason 
for the appellant to make a confession to Susheela, P.W.4 as she _was 
not having good relations with her. The recovery of the body is not at 
the instance of.the appellant and the recovery of the motor bike and 
nylon saree is of no value. The prosecution has failed to examine the 
material witnesses. It was submitted that the appellant has in statement 
under section 313 Cr.P.C. mentioned that she had gone to the police 
station along with photograph of the deceased on 23.5.2005 when
KALA @ CHANDRAKALA v. STATE THROUGH INSPECTOR 
OF POLICE [ARUN MISHRA, J.l 
there was beat of drum in the village by which she came to know that 
a body was found below the bridge of the canal. It was submitted that 
the appellant is innocent and deserves to be acquitted. 
4. It was contended by the learned counsel appearing on behalf 
of the State of Tamil Nadu that the accused and the deceased used 
. to quarrel frequently. lt was the habit o_f the ·deceased of drinking 
alcohol and indulge in gambling. 6nce the accused persons came to 
know of the deceased having entered into agreement of sale, they had 
dedded to get rid of him and thereby murdered him and threw the body 
below the bridge of the canal. The deceased was last seen in the company 
of the accused. it was submitted that the extra-judicial coilfessio1imade 
by the appellant to P. W.4 and recovery of motor bike and nylon saree 
which was used for committing murder show. that tlie chain of 
circumstances is complete. The appellant did not disclose the fact of . 
disappearance of the deceased from· 16.5.2005 to 31.5.2005 to the 
police and she was not the person to identify the, artides belonging to 
the deceased. The deceased was identified by the articles i.e. chappal, 
shirt etc. by .Susheela, P. W.4. It was therefore submitted that the 
conviction recorded by the trial Court and affirmed by the High Court 
calls for no interference in the appeal. 
· 
5. The case depends upon the circumstantial evidence and
the . 
· extra-judicial confession made by th(! appellantto Susheela, P.W.4, sister 
of the deceased.· This is trite law that the chain of' circumstm:ices 
should be complete to fasten the guilt on the accused. 
6. Firstly, _we will examine whether the extra-judicial confession _ 
which is a weak kind of evidence, inspire the confidence. Susheela, 
P. W.4 has stated that Murugesan was marrie.d to the 
~ppellant 14 
years before the incident. She came in search of his brother Murugesan 
to the'ltouse of the deceased. Murugesan has told her on 12.5.2005 
that appellant had threatened to kill him as he was habitual ofConsuming 
alcohol. When she did not receive any telephone call for 15 days from 
the deceased, she went to his village. On enquiry she was informed by 
the appellant that she, her netJbew Prakasam and father murdered the 
deceased and threw his body under the bridge. 
Susheela, P:W.4 -
further stated that the appellant touched · her legs and stated that she. 
would give· properties of her father to two children and that she 
should not inform the police. 
Thereaftei:, -P..:W.4 went to the police 
station on the same day and . lodged the complaint - Ex.P2. The 
, ... 
801 
A 
B 
c 
D . 
E 
F. 
G 
H
802 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
(2016] 3 S.C.R. 
police showed her the photograph, shirt and slippers and asked her to 
identify the same. She identified them to be of her brother. She has 
further stated to have gone to pol ice station after 5 days with 
photograph of deceased. In the cross-examination, she has also stated 
that she had signed the agreement for sale of land executed by the 
accused. It is apparent that accused was not having good relationship 
with Susheela, PW.4. Making confession to such an inimical person is 
most unJikely. When the witness had gone in search of the deceased to 
the house of the accused it is most unlikely that the confessional statement 
would be made to hei· readily. It is not that the appellant had gone to 
the house of P.W.4 to make the confession. On the other hand query 
was made by the daughter of the deceased to Susheela, P. W.4 as to 
the whereabouts of the deceased, meaning thereby the whereabouts 
of the deceased were not known even to his daughter. In case the 
deceased had been killed in the house, perhaps the daughter would 
have known about the offence having been committed by the accused. 
7. In Sahadevan and Am: v. Staie of Tamil Nadu (2012) 6 SCC 
403, it has been observed that extra-judicial confession is weak piece 
of evidence. Before acting upon it the Com1 must ensure that the 
same inspires confidence and it is corroborated by other prosecution 
evidence. In Ba/winder Singh i: State of Punjab l 995
Supp ( 4) SCC 
259, it has been observed that extra-judicial confession requires great 
deal of care and caution before acceptance. There should be no 
suspicious circumstances surrounding it. In Pakkirisamy v. State of 
Tamil Nadu (1997) 8 SCC 158 it has been observed that there has to 
be "independent corroboration for placing any reliance upon cxtra-
judicial confession. In Kavita v. State of Tamil Nadu ( 1998) 6 SCC 
I 08 it has been observed that ·reliability of the same depends upon the 
veracity of the witnesses to whom it is made. Similar. view has been 
expressed in State of Rajasthan v. Raja Ram (2003) 8 SCC 180, in 
which this Court has further observed that witness must be unbiased 
and not even remotely inimical to the accused. In Aloke 11ath Dutta 
v. State of West Bengal (2007) 12 SCC 230 it has been observed that 
G ' the main features of confession are required to be verified. In Sansar 
Chand v. State of Rajas than (20 l 0) l 0 SCC 604 it has been observed 
that extra-judicial confession should be corroborated by some other 
material on record. In Rameshbhai Chandubhai Rathod v. State of 
Gujarat (2009) 5 SCC 740 it has been observed that in the case of 
H 
retracted confession it is unsafe for the Cou11 to rely on it. 
In Vl}ay
KALA @ CHANDRAKALA v. STATE THROUGH INSPECTOR 
OF POLICE [ARUN MISHRA, J.l 
Shankar v. State of Haryana (2015) 12 SCC 644 this Court has 
followed the decision in Sahadevan (supra). 
8. In the circumstances of the case, the confession made to 
Susheela, PW.4 does not inspire confidence. She was not having 
good relationship with accused and is not corroborated by other evidence 
on record, hence, it would not be safe to act upon it in the facts· and 
circumstances of the case. The extra-judicial confession made to police 
is admissible only with respect to the recoveries made of the moped as 
well as a piece of nylon saree, pursuant to the information, which 
articles are not proved to be connected with offence. 
9. Firstly. we deal with the recovery of the Bajaj moped at the 
instance of the appellant. It is deposed by Soundarrajan. P.W.12 that 
he was running a cooking gas agency and the absconding accused 
Prakasam was using Bajaj M-80 motor cycle to deliver gas cylinders. 
The appellant accused was first brought by the police to his residence 
and later on to shop. and the vehicle was recovered by the police from 
his shop along with certificate of the registration. 
Prakasan had 
taken one week leave from him and thereafter did not turn up. 
Though the prosecution has alleged that Bajaj !Vl-80 vehicle was 
used to carry the body of the deceased by Prakasam and the appellant 
and they were seen by two witnesses while going towards canal. 
But the said witnesses had not
been examined in the court by the 
prosecution for the reasons known to it. 
Thus the prosecution has 
failed to establish that the vehicle in question was used for carrying the 
body of the deceased and it was so carried as alleged. The vehicle 
has been recovered from its owner with no blood stains. It was not in 
possession of the appellant and was recovered from the gas agency 
where it was supposed to be. Merely by the fact that the vehicle was 
used by Prakasan for distribution of the cooking gas cannot be a 
circumstance so as to fasten the guilt upon the appellant. It was a 
Well known fact that vehicle was used by Prakasam for distribution of 
cooking gas. Use of the vehicle in the offence in question has not been 
proved and its recovery which is not from the possession of the 
appellant, the same cannot be used as a circurnstancc to fasten the 
guilt upon the appellant. 
I 0. Now coming to the question of recovery of piece of nylon 
saree. The statement of Dr. Sivakumar, P.W.20 autopsy surgeon indicates 
803 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H
804 
A 
8 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2016] 3 S.C.R. 
that the body of the deceased was decomposed. As per chemical test 
report poison was not found. There was no wound caused to larynx 
before death. As the body of the deceased was highly decomposed 
the cause of death was not mentioned by the Doctor, P. W.20 in the 
post-111011em report. On query being made to him by the Inspector of 
Police regarding cause of death, he answered that that since the body 
was decomposed he was unable to say so, thus, the cause of death has 
not been established. No internal and external injury has been mentioned 
in the autopsy report. Thus, the prnsecution has not been able to 
establish that the death was caused by strangulating the deceased and 
the piece of nylon saree was used to cause the death. Hence, recovery 
of the piece of nylon sa.ree is of no value as the prosecution has not 
been able to link the same with the commission of the offence. 
11. The appellant had not kept quiet for I 5 days from 16.5.2005 
to 31.5.2005. She had clearly stated in the statement under Section 313 
that she had gone to the police station on 23.5.2005 along with 
photograph of the deceased and had also stated that the deceased 
frequently used to go outside for 2 to 5 days. This explains her conduct, 
nothing more can be attributed to her exclusive knowledge which she 
was r_equired to explain within the purview of Section I 06 of the 
. Evidence Act:Knowledge of any other fact is
not.attributable to her in 
view of the evidence adduced in the case. Thus, the submissio'n 
based upon the provisions contained in Section I 06 is ofno avail to the 
respondent. 
12. The prosecution has also not led evidence that the appellant 
was ever required to identify the articles of the· deceased. There is 
nothing on record indicating that they were shown to her for the 
purpose of identification and she had refused to identify them. There 
is contradiction in the. version ofSusheela P. W.4 as to when she identified 
. the deceased. On one hand, she had stated that she did so on 31.5.2005, 
on the other hand, she has.s..tated that she went to the police station with 
the photograph of the deceased after-five days thereof. 
· 
_ 
13. In the instant case, which is based on the circumstantial 
evidence, particularly when the body has not been recovered at the 
instance of the accused, the recoveries of moped and piece of nylon 
saree which were made are not proved to be related to commission of 
offence, they are 1i.ot proved-to be incrimi1iating materials. Tbe extra- -: 
judicial confession made by the appellant to Susheela, P. W.4 is prima
KALA @ CHANDRAKALA v. STATE THROUGH INSPECTOR 
OF POLICE [ARUN MISHRA, J.l 
facie unusual and doubtful and is not corroborated by other evidence 
on record. Merely, the fact that the deceased had left the house on 
16.5.2005, as per version of appellant, cannot be used as a circumstance 
.against her so as to fasten guilt. The deceased used to drink alcohol 
and used to spend money recklessly. Due to his bad habits, there may 
be so many enemies of him. How the deceased spent the amount of 
Rs.1,30,000/- which he received on execution of agreement is not on 
record. The prosecution has not been able to complete the chain of 
circumstances so as to fasten the guilt and to prove the commission 
of offence by the appellant beyond periphery of doubt. The father of 
appellant has also been extended benefit of doubt. As such, the appellant 
is entitled for benefit of doubt in view of the evidence which has been 
adduced by the prosecution. 
14. Resultantly, the appeal is allowed. The appellant is acquitted 
giving her the benefit of doubt. The judgments and orders of the 
courts below of conviction and sentence are quashed and set aside. 
Divya Pandey 
Appeal allowed. 
805 
A 
8 
c 
D