The Supreme Court has acquitted the convict in a 2007 murder case involving the death of a six-year-old child, holding that the prosecution failed to establish his guilt beyond reasonable doubt and that several crucial links in the chain of circumstantial evidence were missing.

A Bench of Justice Sanjay Kumar and Justice Sanjeev Sachdeva allowed the appeal and set aside the judgments of the Punjab and Haryana High Court and the Sessions Court at Ambala, which had convicted appellant Sahab Singh under Sections 302, 201 and 377 of the Indian Penal Code.

The appellant had already spent more than 16 years and seven months in custody. The Supreme Court reaffirmed its earlier direction that he be released forthwith unless his continued detention was required in connection with another case

The case arose from an FIR registered in 2007, after six-year-old Gaurav went missing.

The child's dead body was recovered from a well the following morning. The post-mortem report opined that the cause of death was asphyxia due to smothering and cervical spinal injury.

The prosecution case rested entirely on circumstantial evidence.

It alleged that the child had been last seen with the appellant while he was purchasing a packet of namkeen and two cold tablets. The prosecution also relied upon an alleged extra-judicial confession made by the appellant before the village Sarpanch.

An alleged disclosure statement and forensic evidence, including the detection of semen on the accused's underwear and the rectal swab of the deceased, were also relied upon.

The Trial Court convicted the appellant, and the High Court subsequently dismissed his appeal, leading to the filing of an appeal before the Supreme Court by the accused.

Section 27 disclosure inadmissible

The Court found that the statements made under  Section 27, Evidence Act led to no discovery of new facts or incriminating material, and that the prosecution failed to explain why the accused would confess to a village Sarpanch with whom he had no prior connection.

The statement was recorded on March 14, 2007, while the child's body had already been recovered from the well on March 12. The Court therefore found the High Court's conclusion that the disclosure statement had led to discovery of the body to be clearly incorrect.

According to the Bench, the locations allegedly identified by the accused were already known to the police, and a site plan had been prepared on March 12. Consequently, there was no discovery of a new fact capable of attracting the evidentiary principle under Section 27 of the Evidence Act

Allowing the appeal, the judgment authored by Justice Sachdeva discredited the very foundation of the prosecution's case, holding that the prosecution had failed to prove the guilt of the accused beyond a reasonable doubt, as the entire case rested on circumstantial evidence, and rejecting the prosecution's reliance on the accused's disclosure statement and the recovery of a locally available namkeen packet to establish the 'last seen together' theory.

“…the presence of the accused at the spot of incident at the relevant time is sought to be established by mere presence of an open packet of namkeen which, in the evidence of the prosecution has been established, is a packet which is readily available and sold in thousands all over the village. The prosecution has failed to establish a connection between the packet of namkeen recovered from the spot and the accused. It may be noticed that the theory of the prosecution of the last seen has been propounded to corroborate the alleged extra judicial confession. There is no plausible explanation of the prosecution as to why the accused would make an extra judicial confession to the Sarpanch of the village with whom neither he nor the victim had any connection."

Further, the Court refused to take into account the alleged extra-judicial confession made by the Appellant to the village sarpanch, with whom either he or the victim had no connection or linkage, as such confession remained uncorroborated by other prosecution evidence.

“Extra judicial confession is a weak piece of evidence and per se without any independent and cogent corroborative circumstance or evidence cannot be make the sole basis for conviction. Wherever the court, upon due appreciation of the entire prosecution evidence, intends to base a conviction on an extra-judicial confession, it must ensure that the same inspires confidence and is corroborated by other prosecution evidence. If, however, the extra-judicial confession suffers from material discrepancies or inherent improbabilities and does not appear to be cogent as per the prosecution version, it may be difficult for the court to base a conviction on such a confession. In such circumstances, the court would be fully justified in ruling such evidence out of consideration.”, the Court observed.

No DNA link between semen samples

The Court also highlighted a significant gap in the forensic evidence. Although semen was detected on the underwear of the accused and on the rectal swab of the deceased, no DNA test was conducted to establish that the two samples came from the same person.

The Bench held that, in the absence of such a link, the prosecution could not shift the burden onto the accused to explain the alleged connection.

“…there are several missing links in the chain of the prosecution case which, in our view, do not establish beyond reasonable doubt that the accused was the person who committed the offence. Since, in our view, prosecution has failed to establish the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt, the benefit of the same has to be given to the accused.”, the Court said, while giving a benefit of doubt to the Appellant.

As a result, the appeal was allowed, and the conviction was set aside.

Headnote

Criminal Law — Circumstantial Evidence — Extra-Judicial Confession — Evidentiary Value — Duty of Court - An extra-judicial confession is inherently a weak piece of evidence and, per se, cannot form the sole basis of conviction without independent and cogent corroboration - Wherever the court intends to base a conviction on an extra-judicial confession upon due appreciation of the entire evidence, it must ensure that the confession inspires confidence and is corroborated by other prosecution evidence - If it suffers from material discrepancies or inherent improbabilities, the court is fully justified in ruling such evidence out of consideration - the prosecution alleged an extra-judicial confession was made to the village Sarpanch (PW-9) on 14.03.2007, whereas shopkeepers (PW 7 and PW-8) testified that the accused was already in police custody and brought to the shop on 12.03.2007 - This material contradiction, combined with the lack of intimate connection between the accused and the Sarpanch, completely belied the prosecution story. [Relied On Sahadevan v. State of T.N., (2012) 6 SCC 403; Paras 31 – 43]

Indian Evidence Act, 1872 — Section 27 [Now Proviso to Section 23(2), Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023] — Disclosure Statement & Information Leading to Discovery — Inadmissibility when no new fact is discovered - A confession made to a police officer is inadmissible except to the extent permitted under Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, where a fact is discovered in consequence of information received from the accused - Where no new fact is discovered and the disclosure statement merely relates to the demarcation or identification of places/spots already within the prior knowledge of the police and recorded in the site plan, Section 27 cannot be invoked, and the disclosure statement cannot be taken into consideration - The High Court fundamentally erred in holding that the disclosure statement dated 14.03.2007 led to the recovery of the deceased's body from the well, when the body had already been recovered by the police two days earlier on 12.03.2007. [Paras 38–44]

Criminal Law — Circumstantial Evidence — "Last Seen Together" Theory — Inferences from Cross-Examination Suggestions — Impermissibility - The theory of "last seen together" cannot be established when the witness testimonies lack consistency, contain material improvements over police statements, and fail to establish that the deceased accompanied the accused in close proximity to the time of death - The High Court committed a manifest error by holding that even if prosecution witnesses failed to depose in their examination-in-chief that the child accompanied the accused, a mere suggestion put by the defence counsel during cross-examination could be treated as an admission/inference establishing the "last seen together" theory to clinch the guilt of the accused - Circumstantial links cannot be substituted with erroneous inferences drawn from defence cross examination suggestions. [Paras 23-42]

Criminal Law — Forensic Evidence — Burden of Proof — Section 106, Evidence Act — Absence of DNA Profiling - Where human semen is detected on the underwear of the accused as well as on the rectal swab of the deceased, the prosecution is duty bound to establish a positive link through DNA profiling or scientific matching - In the absence of a DNA match connecting the two samples, the mere presence of semen on the clothing of an unmarried accused cannot lead to a presumption of guilt - The burden cannot be shifted to the accused to prove that the semen did not belong to him or did not match the victim; the initial burden of proving the charge beyond reasonable doubt remains squarely on the prosecution. [Paras 26 – 45]

Indian Penal Code, 1860 — Sections 302, 201, and 377 — Murder, Causing Disappearance of Evidence, and Unnatural Offences — Circumstantial Evidence — Missing Links in Chain of Events — Benefit of Doubt - Where conviction rests solely on circumstantial evidence, the prosecution is required to establish an unbroken and complete chain of events leading solely to the hypothesis of the accused's guilt - Where there are significant gaps including unexplained seizure of ordinary consumer articles (generic packet of namkeen) before any disclosure, ante timed/contradictory custody prior to the alleged extra-judicial confession, invalid reliance on Section 27 recoveries, uncorroborated "last seen" theory, and lack of forensic DNA matching the chain remains broken - Conviction and sentence set aside; appellant extended the benefit of doubt and ordered to be released forthwith after serving over 16 years of incarceration – Appeal allowed. [Paras 27–36, 46–50].

Cause Title: SAHAB SINGH ALIAS SAT PAL VERSUS STATE OF HARYANA

Citation : 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 887

Appearance:

For Petitioner(s) Mr. S. Mahendran, AOR

For Respondent(s) Mr. Justine George, A.A.G. Mr. Samar Vijay Singh, AOR Ms. Sabarni Som, Adv. Mr. Aman Dev Sharma, Adv. Ms. Anjali Upadhyay, Adv. Mr. Tushar Saigal, Adv. Mr. A.S.L.N. Raju, Adv.