Supreme Court of India
SHANTI DEVIversusSTATE OF HARYANA
- Citation
- 2025 INSC 987
- Decided
- 6 August 2025
- Disposal
- Appeal(s) allowed
- Bench
- MANOJ MISRA
Holding
The Supreme Court held that the prosecution failed to prove a complete chain of incriminating circumstances, rendering the convictions under Sections 302/34 and 201/34 IPC unsustainable, and therefore set aside the judgments and acquitted the accused.
Summary
The appellant Shanti Devi, her son Rajbir and another accused Veena were convicted by the trial court and upheld by the High Court for the murder of Balwant, the informant's son, under Sections 302/34 and 201/34 IPC. The prosecution's case relied entirely on circumstantial evidence, including a motive of illegal occupation, alleged extra‑judicial confessions, and recoveries of weapons, many of which were contradicted or deemed inadmissible. The Supreme Court examined the five golden principles for circumstantial evidence and found that the prosecution failed to establish any of them, with the motive theory unsubstantiated and the confessions inadmissible under Sections 25‑27 of the Evidence Act. Forensic Science Laboratory reports further weakened the alleged incriminating recoveries. Consequently, the Court held that the evidence did not meet the burden of proof and set aside the convictions, acquitting Shanti Devi and extending the benefit to her son Rajbir, who had not appealed.
Issues considered
- The prosecution's circumstantial evidence satisfies the five golden principles required for conviction?
- The extra‑judicial confessions recorded in the presence of police are admissible under the Evidence Act?
- Whether the motive of illegal occupation alleged by the informant is sufficiently proved?
- Whether the recovered weapons and forensic evidence constitute reliable incriminating circumstances?
- Whether the trial and appellate courts erred in upholding the convictions on the basis of the evidence presented
Legislation cited
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973s. 173(2)
- Evidence Act, 1872s. 25, s. 26, s. 27
- Indian Penal Code, 1860s. 201, s. 302, s. 34
Headnote
Issue for Consideration Issue arose whether the courts below were justified in convicting and sentencing the appellant for the offences punishable u/ss.302/34 and 201/34 IPC for the alleged murder of the son of the informant. Headnotes† Penal Code, 1860 – ss.302/34 and 201/34 – and another lady convicted and sentenced u/ss.302/34 and 201/34 for the alleged murder of the son of the informant – Informant’s case that the appellant and her son, were in illegal occupation of the house owned by the victim together with the other lady and some unknown persons
Subjects
MurderIllegal occupationChain of incriminating circumstancesAppellate jurisdictionTestimony of the witnessesLast seen together theoryExtra-judicial confession theoryTheory of motiveNegative FSL reportIncriminating recoveriesRecoveriesBenefit to the non-appealing accused
Judgment
[2025] 8 S.C.R. 919 : 2025 INSC 987
Shanti Devi
v.
State of Haryana
(Criminal Appeal No. 2861 of 2025)
06 August 2025
[Manoj Misra and Sandeep Mehta,* JJ.]
Issue for Consideration
Issue arose whether the courts below were justified in convicting
and sentencing the appellant for the offences punishable
u/ss.302/34 and 201/34 IPC for the alleged murder of the son of
the informant.
Headnotes†
Penal Code, 1860 – ss.302/34 and 201/34 – Murder – Prosecution
case that three persons-appellant, her son and another lady
convicted and sentenced u/ss.302/34 and 201/34 for the alleged
murder of the son of the informant – Informant’s case that the
appellant and her son, were in illegal occupation of the house
owned by the victim together with the other lady and some
unknown persons murdered his son because he wanted to get
the house vacated – Other lady died pending appeal – High
Court upheld the order passed by the trial court – Correctness:
Held: Evidence led by the prosecution not sufficient and lacks
credibility so as to form a complete chain of incriminating
circumstances warranting the affirmation of the prosecution case –
Entire case of the prosecution discarded – Prosecution failed to
prove even a single of these so-called incriminating circumstances
so as to justify the conviction of the appellant for the charge of
murdering the informant’s son – Trial court as well as the High
Court in appellate jurisdiction grossly erred while appreciating the
evidence and holding the testimony of the witnesses who gave
evidence on the last seen together theory and the extra-judicial
confession theory to be reliable – Theory of motive attributed by the
prosecution to the appellant and her son not convincing – Alleged
motive neither justified nor substantiated by evidence – Both the
* Author
920 [2025] 8 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
courts have, despite the negative FSL report, relied upon the so-
called incriminating recoveries – Reliance placed by the courts
below on the recoveries misplaced and unjustified – Furthermore,
the negative FSL report makes the recoveries inconsequential –
Impugned judgment by the High Court and the trial court do not
stand to scrutiny and are quashed and set aside – Appellant is
acquitted of the charges – Entire case of the prosecution being
discarded, the benefit extended to the non-appealing accused,
son of the appellant and is acquitted of the charges. [Paras 13-39]
Case Law Cited
Sharad Birdhichand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra [1985] 1 SCR
88 : (1984) 4 SCC 116; Sahadevan v. State of Tamil Nadu [2012]
4 SCR 366 : (2012) 6 SCC 403 – referred to.
List of Acts
Penal Code, 1860; Evidence Act, 1872; Code of Criminal Procedure,
1973.
List of Keywords
Murder; Illegal occupation; Chain of incriminating circumstances;
Appellate jurisdiction; Testimony of the witnesses; Last seen
together theory; Extra-judicial confession theory; Theory of motive;
Negative FSL report; Incriminating recoveries; Recoveries; Benefit
to the non-appealing accused.
Case Arising From
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal No.
2861 of 2025
From the Judgment and Order dated 24.05.2024 of the High Court
of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh in CRAD No. 178 of 2023
Appearances for Parties
Advs. for the Appellant:
Dr. Nirmal Chopra, Ms. Aaina Verma, Amit Kumar.
Advs. for the Respondent:
Vishal Khattar, A.A.G., Akshay Amritanshu, Ms. Drishti Rawal,
Ms. Drishti Saraf, Sarthak Shrivastava, Mayur Goyal.
[2025] 8 S.C.R. 921
Shanti Devi v. State of Haryana
Judgment / Order of the Supreme Court
Judgment
Mehta, J.
1. The accused-appellant Shanti Devi, Rajbir (accused No. 2) and
Veena (accused No.3) faced trial in the Court of Additional Sessions
Judge, Hisar1 for the offences punishable under Section 302 read
with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 18602 and Section 201
read with Section 34 IPC.
2. The learned trial Court vide judgment dated 14th January, 2003,
held all the three accused guilty of the aforesaid charges and vide
sentencing order dated 16th January, 2003, all the three accused were
sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life for the commission of
offence punishable under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC and
a fine of Rs. 1000/- with default stipulation and to undergo rigorous
imprisonment for 3 years and fine of Rs. 500/- each for the charge
under Section 201 IPC read with Section 34 IPC with the default
stipulation.
3. The accused-appellant Shanti Devi and Rajbir (accused No.2)
preferred CRA-D-178-DB of 2003 before the High Court of Punjab
and Haryana3 for assailing the judgment of the trial Court. Likewise,
Veena (accused No.3) also preferred an appeal for assailing her
conviction. However, Veena (accused No.3) expired and hence her
appeal abated. The learned Division Bench of the High Court rejected
the appeals preferred by the accused-appellant and Rajbir (accused
No.2) vide judgment dated 24th May, 2024,4 which is assailed by
the accused-appellant Shanti Devi in this appeal by special leave.
4. The prosecution story, in a nutshell, is that the Police Post, HTM,
Hisar was informed by K.S. Sardana (PW-1), Junior Engineer from
Water Works, Mahabir Colony, Hisar in the evening of 23rd December,
1997, that a human dead body concealed in a gunny bag was lying in
1 Hereinafter, referred to as the ‘trial Court’.
2 Hereinafter, referred to as the ‘IPC’.
3 Hereinafter, referred to as ‘High Court.’
4 Hereinafter, referred to as ‘impugned judgment’.
922 [2025] 8 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
the water works tank. On receiving this information, ASI Shish Ram,
along with other police officials reached the location and the bag was
taken out of the water tank. The body was removed from the gunny
bag and was placed outside. Several persons gathered there. One
Har Nath (PW-11)5 came around and identified the dead body to be
that of his son Balwant (the deceased). He gave a complaint6 to the
police officials on the basis whereof, FIR7 came to be registered at
Police Station City Hisar. The gist of allegations as set out in the
complaint of Har Nath (PW-11) are extracted below.
5. Har Nath (PW-11) had five sons. His second eldest son was Balwant
(deceased), who had constructed one house, in Gagandeep Colony
on Balsamand Road, Hisar and another house in Dhani Badwali near
Hanuman Mandir at Hisar. Balwant (deceased) resided with his family
in the house at Gagandeep Colony. Accused-appellant Shanti Devi,
widow of Dilip Dhanky was holding illegal possession of the inner
room of the house of Balwant (deceased) at Dhani Badwali, whereas
the outer room had been retained by Balwant (deceased) for his
own occupation. Many times, he would stay in the said room during
night. Balwant (deceased) was involved in an illicit relationship with
Veena (accused No.3), wife of Ram Chander who was also on visiting
terms with accused-appellant Shanti Devi. On 23rd December, 1997,
in the morning, Savitri, wife of Balwant (deceased), approached the
informant (PW-11) and told that her husband Balwant (deceased), had
left on Saturday, 20th December, 1997, for Hisar city and thereafter,
he did not return home. The informant (PW-11) started a search for
Balwant (deceased), in the city and made inquiries from his friends
but his whereabouts could not be ascertained. During this process, he
reached the water works tank, where he learned about the recovery
of a dead body and identified it as that of his son Balwant (deceased).
The body bore multiple injuries inflicted by sharp-edged weapons.
The informant (PW-11) suspected that accused-appellant Shanti
Devi, her son Rajbir (accused No.2), who are in illegal occupation
of the house owned by Balwant (deceased) together with Veena
(accused No.3) and some unknown persons had murdered his son
Balwant (deceased) because he wanted to get the house vacated
due to which the accused bore a grudge against him.
5 Hereinafter, referred to as ‘informant.’
6 Exhibit P.A.
7 FIR No. 1307 of 1997; Exhibit P.C.
[2025] 8 S.C.R. 923
Shanti Devi v. State of Haryana
6. After registration of the FIR, inquest report8 was prepared and the
dead body of Balwant (deceased) was subjected to autopsy at the
hands of a team of Doctors who issued the post mortem report9,
taking note of 13 incised wounds and few abrasions on the dead
body of Balwant (deceased). The cause of death was opined to
be fracture of frontal bone leading to intra-cerebral hemorrhage
which caused shock and hemorrhage. All injuries were stated to be
ante-mortem and sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of
nature. The time gap between death and post mortem was opined
to be 2 to 5 days.
7. The prosecution claims that Veena (accused No.3) was arrested,
and she suffered a disclosure statement10 to the effect that she,
along with accused-appellant Shanti Devi and Rajbir (accused No.2)
had committed the murder of Balwant (deceased). Veena (accused
No.3) caused injuries to Balwant (deceased) with an axe (Kulhari),
whereas accused-appellant Shanti Devi had inflicted injuries with a
Bugda. Rajbir (accused No.2) had caught hold of Balwant (deceased)
when he was being assaulted. Initially, the dead body was buried in
the kitchen of the house taken on rent by accused-appellant Shanti
Devi and later the same was stuffed in a gunny bag and discarded
in the water works tank.
8. The accused-appellant Shanti Devi allegedly made an extra-judicial
confession in the presence of Nathu Ram, who produced the
accused-appellant Shanti Devi before the police and accordingly she
was arrested. The prosecution alleges that upon interrogation, the
accused-appellant Shanti Devi suffered a disclosure statement11 and
in furtherance thereof, a blood-stained bed sheet (Chaddar)12 was
recovered from the kitchen of the house taken on rent by accused-
appellant Shanti Devi and the Bugda13 allegedly used in the incident
was recovered from the sewerage. The prosecution also placed
reliance on the evidence of Krishan @ Kuli (PW-15) who claimed
that on 20th December, 1997, while he was passing from near the
8 Exhibit PH/2.
9 Exhibit P.J.
10 Exhibit P.N.
11 Exhibit P.S.
12 Exhibit P20.
13 Exhibit P17.
924 [2025] 8 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
house of accused-appellant Shanti Devi, he saw Veena (accused
No.3), Rajbir (accused No.2) and accused-appellant Shanti Devi
quarrelling with Balwant (deceased). He attempted to intervene and
stop the quarrel, but his efforts went in vain, whereupon he left the
place. A few days later, he came to know that Balwant (deceased)
had been murdered. After 15 to 16 days of the occurrence, Rajbir
(accused No.2) s/o accused-appellant Shanti Devi approached him
and confessed to the crime and requested to produce him before
the police. Upon this, the witness (PW-15) produced Rajbir (accused
No.2) before the police. Based on these pieces of circumstantial
evidence, i.e., last seen theory [based on the evidence of Krishan
@ Kuli (PW-15)], motive as alleged by the informant (PW-11), the
allegedly incriminating recoveries and the extra-judicial confessions,
the investigating officer (PW-18) proceeded to file a report under
Section 173(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 197314 against
all the three accused persons. The case was committed to the trial
Court who conducted trial and convicted all the accused as above.
9. The High Court rejected the appeal preferred by the accused-appellant
Shanti Devi by judgment dated 24th May, 2024, which is assailed in
this appeal by special leave.
10. We have heard and considered the submissions advanced by
learned counsel for the parties and have meticulously gone through
the original record.
11. Indisputably, the case of the prosecution is based totally on
circumstantial evidence. The law is well settled that in cases based
purely on circumstantial evidence, the onus lies upon the prosecution
to prove the chain of incriminating circumstances beyond all manner
of doubt. The five golden principles to be followed in a case based
on circumstantial evidence formulated by this Court in the celebrated
case of Sharad Birdhichand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra,15 are
reproduced hereinbelow:-
“153. A close analysis of this decision would show that
the following conditions must be fulfilled before a case
against an accused can be said to be fully established:
14 Hereinafter, referred to as the “CrPC”.
15 (1984) 4 SCC 116.
[2025] 8 S.C.R. 925
Shanti Devi v. State of Haryana
(1) the circumstances from which the conclusion of
guilt is to be drawn should be fully established.
It may be noted here that this Court indicated that
the circumstances concerned “must or should”
and not “may be” established. There is not only a
grammatical but a legal distinction between “may
be proved” and “must be or should be proved” as
was held by this Court in Shivaji Sahabrao Bobade
v. State of Maharashtra [(1973) 2 SCC 793] where the
observations were made:
“Certainly, it is a primary principle that the
accused must be and not merely may be
guilty before a court can convict and the
mental distance between ‘may be’ and ‘must
be’ is long and divides vague conjectures
from sure conclusions.”
(2) the facts so established should be consistent only
with the hypothesis of the guilt of the accused, that
is to say, they should not be explainable on any other
hypothesis except that the accused is guilty,
(3) the circumstances should be of a conclusive nature
and tendency,
(4) they should exclude every possible hypothesis
except the one to be proved, and
(5) there must be a chain of evidence so complete as
not to leave any reasonable ground for the conclusion
consistent with the innocence of the accused and must
show that in all human probability the act must have
been done by the accused.”
(Emphasis Supplied)
12. Keeping in view the above principles, we shall now proceed to analyse
and evaluate the evidence led by the prosecution.
13. The informant (PW-11) came out with a categoric theory regarding
motive based on an allegation that the accused-appellant Shanti Devi
was illegally occupying the house of Balwant (deceased) located at
926 [2025] 8 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
Dhani Badwali along with her son, Rajbir (accused No.2) and they
were refusing to vacate the same, which as per the witness (PW-11)
constituted the motive to commit the offence. An additional theory
of motive has been propounded with the allegation that Balwant
(deceased) was involved in an illicit affair with Veena (accused No.3),
which also could have been the cause of the murder.
14. Before we discuss the evidence of the informant (PW-11), we may
note that Balwant (deceased) along with his wife Savitri was admittedly
living in a separate house and as per the version of the informant
(PW-11), his interaction with Balwant (deceased) was minimal and
spaced with significant intervals. Thus, the best person to state about
inimical relations of Balwant (deceased) with the accused-appellant
Shanti Devi or his extra marital affair with Veena (accused No.3)
would be his wife Savitri, who was surprisingly not examined as a
witness in this case.
15. We shall now proceed to analyze the testimony of the informant
(PW-11) to find out if the theory of motive was actually substantiated
by his evidence. On a perusal of the deposition of the informant (PW-
11), we find that he did not utter a single word in his examination-
in-chief regarding the existence of any extra marital affair between
his son Balwant (deceased) and Veena (accused No.3). The only
aspersion cast by the witness (PW-11) against the accused-appellant
Shanti Devi was that she had forcibly occupied one room of the
house owned by Balwant. However, the said version is contradicted
by the witness himself who also stated that the room which accused-
appellant Shanti Devi was occupying, was given to her on rent. These
two versions i.e., forcible occupation and possession as a tenant
are diametrically opposite and cannot be reconciled.
16. In cross-examination, the witness (PW-11) admitted that Balwant
(deceased) met him 10 to 12 days prior to his death. He could not
say where Balwant was staying in the intervening period. He had
visited the house of Balwant (deceased), where accused-appellant
Shanti Devi was a tenant, four to five days prior to the incident. The
witness (PW-11) was put pertinent suggestions in cross-examination
regarding execution of rent note qua the portion of the house given on
rent to accused-appellant Shanti Devi, to which he feigned ignorance.
He further claimed that he had seen Veena (accused No.3) in the
house of Balwant (deceased), 7 days prior to his death. In the same
[2025] 8 S.C.R. 927
Shanti Devi v. State of Haryana
breath, he admitted that Veena (accused No.3) was not previously
known to him. He also admitted that he had talked to Mahavir, Nathu
and various other persons in connection with the search of his son
Balwant (deceased). He also contacted certain women.
17. From the tenor of evidence of this witness, we can safely conclude
that he has given contradictory version regarding the manner in
which accused-appellant Shanti Devi was occupying the house of
Balwant (deceased). The indication given by the witness regarding
contacting certain women in connection with the search for Balwant
(deceased) gives rise to a suspicion regarding the promiscuous
conduct of the deceased. Even though Veena (accused No.3) was
not previously known to the witness (PW-11) in spite thereof, her
name was introduced in the FIR on the purported allegation of
extra marital affairs with Balwant. Thus, from the very inception,
the informant (PW-11) has been indulging in making patently false
aspersions so as to substantiate the theory of motive.
18. The tenor of the allegations in the FIR shows that accused-appellant
Shanti Devi was illegally occupying the inner room in the house of
Balwant (deceased) whereas the informant (PW-11) in his evidence
categorically stated that she was staying as a tenant and that Balwant
(deceased) was trying to evict her from the house. The witness
(PW-11) also stated that Balwant (deceased) often used to stay in
the outer room of the same house when he got late in the night.
The witness (PW-11) also admitted that Balwant (deceased) was
residing separately from him for the last 7 to 8 years and had been
implicated in a case of murder earlier.
19. Apparently, the theory of enmity falls flat to the ground when we
consider that Balwant (deceased) frequently stayed over in night
time in the same house where the accused-appellant Shanti Devi
used to stay. Had there been any acrimony in the relationship,
Balwant (deceased) would not have taken the risk of staying in
the very same house where the family inimical to him was staying.
Hence, we are not convinced with the theory of motive attributed
by the prosecution to the accused-appellant Shanti Devi and her
son, Rajbir (accused No.2). The informant’s version gives rise to
a suspicion that Balwant (deceased) might have been involved in
affairs with many women. It is a fact that he had been arraigned
as an accused in a murder case. Collectively taken, these facts
as appearing in the testimony of PW-11 persuade us to raise an
928 [2025] 8 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
inference that more than one person could be bearing animosity
against Balwant (deceased) and imputing the accused-appellant
Shanti Devi and Rajbir (accused No.2), the alleged motive is neither
justified nor substantiated by evidence. Hence, the theory of motive
is not established by cogent evidence.
20. The next in the chain of incriminating circumstances is the theory of
extra-judicial confession. In this regard, Indraj (PW-12) testified that
on 25th December, 1997, Veena (accused No.3) was interrogated
by police in the flower market. She gave a confessional statement
admitting that she was on visiting terms with accused-appellant Shanti
Devi; On 20th December, 1997, accused-appellant Shanti Devi was
present in the house of Veena (accused No.3); Balwant (deceased)
was sleeping in the house of accused-appellant Shanti Devi; all the
accused, i.e., Shanti, Veena and Rajbir conspired to commit the
murder of Balwant (deceased); Veena (accused No.3) armed with
an axe (Kulhari) and assaulted Balwant (deceased) with the said
weapon and accused-appellant Shanti Devi had assaulted Balwant
(deceased) with a Bugda. At that point of time, Rajbir (accused No.2)
had caught hold of Balwant (deceased). The witness (PW-12) then
went on to narrate about the disclosure statements made by the
accused persons regarding the concealment of the weapons. From
the deposition of the witness in his examination-in-chief, it becomes
clear that whatever confession this witness attributes to Veena
(accused No.3) was made in the presence of the police officials and
hence, the same would be hit by Sections 25 and 26 of the Indian
Evidence Act, 187216.
21. We are of the firm opinion that the trial Court fell into grave error
in even allowing the said inculpatory version of Veena (accused
No.3) to be reproduced in the testimony of the said witness. Law is
well-settled that confessional statement of an accused recorded in
presence of a police officer cannot be admitted in evidence, except
to the extent as provided under Section 27 of the Evidence Act and
that too, when such disclosure leads to the discovery of incriminating
fact/s. The witness (PW-12) admitted in his examination-in-chief
that all the memos were signed by Veena (accused No.3) after
the recovery of the axe. This admission by the witness completely
16 Hereinafter, referred to as “Evidence Act”.
[2025] 8 S.C.R. 929
Shanti Devi v. State of Haryana
demolishes the theory of the investigating officer (PW-18) that the
disclosure statements were recorded first and the recoveries were
made as a consequence thereof. It seems that all the documents
including the disclosure statements and the recovery memos were
prepared at one go after the recoveries had been allegedly effected.
22. The next important witness whose evidence needs to be referred
to is of Bhagatu (PW-14) who took out the Bugda and the axe from
the sewerage. The entire version of this witness in the examination-
in-chief reads as below:-
“On 27.12.97 police had summoned me. I had gone Subji
Mandi, Hisar and on the direction of police I recovered
Bugda. Just ahead of this place, l also recovered on the
direction of police, Kulhari and quilt from the sewerage.”
23. On a perusal of the above statement, it becomes apparent that the
witness (PW-14) did not acknowledge the presence of any female
(accused) in the company of the police officials when he took out
the axe and the Bugda from the sewerage. Had there been an
iota of truth in the prosecution story, the witness (PW-14) who was
presumably engaged to make a search in the sewerage, would not
have missed out noticing the presence of the women accused on
whose purported disclosures these recoveries were affected.
24. Hence, the recoveries of the weapons allegedly effected by the
investigating officer (PW-18) pursuant to the alleged disclosure
statements made by the accused fall under a grave cloud of doubt
and cannot be believed.
25. The witness Krishan @ Kuli (PW-15) was examined by the
prosecution for proving the purported theory of last seen together
and extra-judicial confession. He stated that on 20th December,
1997, he was going to the Badwali Dhani at Hisar. At about 08:00
pm, while he was passing from near the house of accused-appellant
Shanti Devi, he saw her quarrelling with Balwant (deceased). He
then improved his version and said that accused-appellant Shanti
Devi, her son Rajbir (accused no.2) and Veena (accused No.3) were
quarrelling with Balwant (deceased). The witness (PW-15) tried to
intervene but to no avail. He then left that place. After a few days,
he came to know that Balwant (deceased) had been murdered.
The witness (PW-15) stated that after about 15 to 16 days from
the occurrence, the accused-appellant Shanti Devi’s son, Rajbir
930 [2025] 8 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
(accused No.2) approached him and requested that he should be
produced before the police. At that time, Rajbir (accused No.2)
confessed before the witness (PW-15) that he, along with accused-
appellant Shanti Devi and Veena (accused No.3) had murdered
Balwant (deceased). The accused gave out details of the manner
of committing the murder and disposal of the body as part of the
so-called extra-judicial confession.
26. In cross-examination, the witness (PW-15) admitted that Balwant
(deceased) was previously known to him because he was a taxi
driver. The witness (PW-15) admitted that he was not on visiting
terms with Balwant (deceased). On the fateful day, he was going
to the house of a gardener named Tony who used to live in the
same locality. He had never visited the house of accused-appellant
Shanti Devi before. He had neither seen Veena (accused No.3) in
the house of accused-appellant Shanti Devi nor was she known
to him from earlier. He could not state about the cause of the
quarrel. He also admitted that before the disclosure was made by
Rajbir (accused No.2), he did not know about the death of Balwant
(deceased). He also admitted that he had been imprisoned earlier
in a double murder case wherein he had been sentenced to life
imprisonment.
27. From the tenor of the evidence of the witness (PW-15), we find that
he is a chance witness who has been planted by the prosecution
to lend succor to the flimsy story portrayed to prove the charges.
There is no plausible reason whatsoever as to why the witness
(PW-15) would have gone to the locality where accused-appellant
Shanti Devi was living on the particular day i.e., 20th December,
1997. Furthermore, the theory put-forth by the witness (PW-15)
that out of the blue, Rajbir (accused No.2) approached him after
about 15 to 16 days of the incident and requested him to assist
his production before the police and made a detailed confession
is absolutely unworthy of credence. Neither there was any such
affinity between the witness (PW-15) and Rajbir (accused No.2)
nor was the witness (PW-15) wielding such influence that Rajbir
(accused No.2) would make a confession before him and ask
for his assistance to be produced before the police. There is a
significant delay in the recording of statement of the witness (PW-
15) by the investigating officer (PW-18), which was recorded on
16th January, 1998. All these facts taken cumulatively make the
[2025] 8 S.C.R. 931
Shanti Devi v. State of Haryana
evidence of PW-15 totally unreliable and his testimony deserves
to be discarded.
28. Another person named Shamsher Singh (PW-17) was examined
by the prosecution who stated that in the month of November or
December, 1997, Veena (accused No.3) came to his house and
disclosed that she was living with Rajbir (accused No.2) in the
rented house of accused-appellant Shanti Devi, which was owned
by Balwant (deceased) and that she along with Rajbir (accused
No.2) and accused-appellant Shanti Devi had murdered Balwant
(deceased). She requested the witness (PW-17) to produce her
before the police.
29. The law on the evidentiary value of extra-judicial confessions is
well settled that such a confession has very weak evidentiary value
and should be accepted with great care and caution. This court
in Sahadevan v. State of Tamil Nadu17 undertook a thorough
examination of the jurisprudence on the evidentiary value of extra-
judicial confessions and laid down certain guiding principles, which
are reproduced hereinbelow:-
“22. Upon a proper analysis of the above-referred
judgments of this Court, it will be appropriate to state the
principles which would make an extra-judicial confession an
admissible piece of evidence capable of forming the basis
of conviction of an accused. These precepts would guide
the judicial mind while dealing with the veracity of cases
where the prosecution heavily relies upon an extra-judicial
confession alleged to have been made by the accused.
The Principles
i) The extra-judicial confession is a weak evidence by
itself. It has to be examined by the court with greater
care and caution.
ii) It should be made voluntarily and should be truthful.
iii) It should inspire confidence.
iv) An extra-judicial confession attains greater
credibility and evidentiary value, if it is supported
17 (2012) 6 SCC 403
932 [2025] 8 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
by a chain of cogent circumstances and is further
corroborated by other prosecution evidence.
v) For an extra-judicial confession to be the basis
of conviction, it should not suffer from any material
discrepancies and inherent improbabilities.
vi) Such statement essentially has to be proved like
any other fact and in accordance with law.”
(Emphasis Supplied)
30. The coincidental similarities in the prosecution case that accused-
appellant Shanti Devi randomly approached Nathu Ram and made
the extra-judicial confession as was made by her son Rajbir (accused
No.2) before Krishan @ Kuli (PW-15) and Veena (accused No.3)
before Shamsher Singh (PW-17) convinces us that the theory of
extra-judicial confessions is nothing but a cock and bull story created
by the police, just in order to lend credence to the flimsy web built
up by them for solving the blind murder of Balwant (deceased).
31. The fact that Krishan @ Kuli (PW-15) did not know the name of
Veena (accused No.3) from before and yet he tried to include her
name in the array of assailants convinces us regarding the blatant
falsity being spoken by the witness (PW-15). The sheer coincidence
that all the three accused randomly approached totally unconnected
persons i.e., Nathu Ram, Krishan @ Kuli (PW-15) and Shamsher
Singh (PW-17) to make the extra-judicial confessions and then asked
for their assistance to be produced before the police reinforces our
conviction that both the witnesses who deposed about the extra-
judicial confessions are gotten up witnesses. None of these witnesses
to the extra-judicial confessions had any prior connection with the
accused nor did they have any such status which could have inspired
or compelled the accused to take their assistance for production
before the police. Furthermore, Nathu Ram was not even examined
by the prosecution. Thus, the theory of extra-judicial confession is
palpably false and cannot be accepted by any stretch of imagination.
32. The last link of circumstantial evidence relied upon by the prosecution
was in the form of recoveries of the weapons and other alleged
incriminating articles, viz, chaddar, soil, etc. As per the prosecution
case, these incriminating articles were recovered at the instance of
the accused-appellant Shanti Devi and the accused Veena (accused
[2025] 8 S.C.R. 933
Shanti Devi v. State of Haryana
no.3). So far as the recoveries of weapons are concerned, while
discussing the statement of Bhagatu (PW-14), we have already
concluded that these recoveries are fake and planted and cannot
be relied upon for any purpose whatsoever.
33. So far as the other recoveries are concerned, the same also pale
into insignificance when we peruse the Forensic Science Laboratory18
report19 dated 14th October, 1998 issued by FSL, Madhuban. The
Government scientist upon analysing the samples, could not arrive
at any conclusion regarding the presence of human blood on any of
the material objects, including the Kulhari and Bugda. These articles
were forwarded to the serological analyst who also analysed the
same and found human blood only on the Chaddar and the blanket.
However, no opinion was given regarding grouping of the blood on
any of the so-called incriminating articles.
34. It is interesting to note that the weapons were not sent for serological
examination because no blood was detected thereupon. Seen in
light of the FSL report, the recoveries allegedly effected at the
instance of the accused-appellant Shanti Devi cannot be termed to
be incriminating as they do not provide any link with the murder of
Balwant.
35. Consequently, we are of the firm opinion that the prosecution has failed
to prove even a single of these so-called incriminating circumstances
so as to justify the conviction of the accused-appellant for the charge
of murdering Balwant (deceased).
36. The trial Court as well as the High Court in appellate jurisdiction grossly
erred while appreciating the evidence and holding the testimony of
the witnesses who gave evidence on the last seen together theory
and the extra-judicial confession theory to be reliable. Both the Courts
have, despite the negative FSL report, relied upon the so-called
incriminating recoveries. Manifestly, the reliance placed by the Courts
below on the recoveries is misplaced and unjustified. Furthermore,
the negative FSL report makes the recoveries inconsequential.
37. Resultantly, the impugned judgment dated 24th May, 2024 rendered
by the High Court and the judgment dated 14th January, 2003 passed
18 Hereinafter, referred to as the ‘FSL’.
19 Exhibit P.C.C.
934 [2025] 8 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
by the trial Court do not stand to scrutiny and are hereby quashed
and set aside. The appellant-accused herein is acquitted of the
charges. She is in custody and shall be released forthwith, if not
wanted in any other case.
38. We may, at this stage, note that the appellant-accused herein as well
as Rajbir (accused No.2), being the son of the appellant-accused
were both provided legal aid counsel in the appeal before the High
Court, manifestly for the reason of their poor financial status. Rajbir
(accused No.2) has not even preferred an appeal against the
judgment of the High Court. However, while discussing the case of
accused-appellant Shanti Devi, we have found that the evidence
led by the prosecution is not sufficient and lacks credibility so as to
form a complete chain of incriminating circumstances warranting the
affirmation of the prosecution case. The entire case of the prosecution
having being discarded, the benefit of this judgment deserves to be
extended to the non-appealing accused Rajbir (accused No.2), who
has unfortunately not preferred an appeal to assail his conviction. In
this regard, we may gainfully refer to Sahadevan (supra), wherein
this Court observed that:-
“Where the Court finds that the prosecution evidence
suffers from serious contradictions, is unreliable, is
ex facie neither cogent nor true and the prosecution
has failed to discharge the established onus of proving
the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt,
the Court will be well within its jurisdiction to return
the finding of acquittal and even suo moto extend the
benefit to a non-appealing accused as well, more so,
where the Court even disbelieves the very occurrence
of the crime itself. Of course, the role attributed to each
of the accused and other attendant circumstances would
be relevant considerations for the Court to apply its
discretion judiciously. There can be varied reasons for a
non-appealing accused in not approaching the appellate
Court. If, for compelling and inevitable reasons, like
lack of finances, absence of any person to pursue his
remedy and lack of proper assistance in the jail, an
accused is unable to file appeal, then it would amount
to denial of access to justice to such accused.”
(Emphasis Supplied)
[2025] 8 S.C.R. 935
Shanti Devi v. State of Haryana
39. Thus, we give the benefit of our conclusions to Rajbir (accused No.2)
as well and also acquit him of the charges. He shall be released
from custody, if not wanted in any other case.
40. The appeal is allowed accordingly.
41. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of.
Result of the case: Appeal allowed.
†
Headnotes prepared by: Nidhi Jain
Search Indian case law
Ask in plain English, not just keywords. 25,000 AI words free, no card.
Try "Murder"Sign in to search