The High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Amaravati has set aside the life imprisonment sentence of a couple previously convicted in a murder case, citing a lack of credible evidence. In a judgment delivered by a Division Bench comprising Justice K. Suresh Reddy and Justice Sumathi Jagadam, the court ruled that the prosecution failed to prove the appellants' involvement beyond a reasonable doubt, emphasizing that a conviction cannot rely solely on an extra-judicial confession made to a person with whom the accused had no prior relationship.

The appeal originated from a 2018 ruling by the Sessions Judge at the Mahila Court in Vijayawada, which had found the appellants, a husband and wife, guilty of offences under Sections 302 and 201 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, as well as Section 376. Following the conviction, the appellants sought relief through the High Court, challenging the evidentiary foundation of the trial court’s decision. The appellate court’s intervention has now resulted in their immediate acquittal, with the bench ordering their release from the central prison where they have been held since the conclusion of their trial.

The prosecution’s narrative centered on the death of a minor girl, a relative whom the couple had raised. According to initial charges, the girl had been subjected to abuse and later murdered on May 15, 2009, with the couple allegedly disposing of her body in the Kondaveeti Vagu. Investigators claimed that the couple had transported the body using an autorickshaw and attempted to destroy evidence, including a pillow used in the commission of the crime. However, during the course of the trial, key witnesses—including neighbors and the owner of the autorickshaw—did not support the prosecution’s version of events and were declared hostile by the court.

The investigation history revealed significant procedural gaps. Following the girl’s disappearance, the wife had filed a "girl missing" report with the local police, while the body was later discovered by a Village Revenue Officer (VRO) in an unidentified state. For weeks, the investigation into the two separate reports—the missing person case and the discovery of an unidentified body—remained stagnant. It was not until June 23, 2009, that the prosecution presented a new element: a purported extra-judicial confession allegedly made by the couple to a Village Revenue Officer acting as a witness.

The appellate bench focused its scrutiny on this confession, identifying it as the sole remaining pillar of the prosecution's case. In its analysis, the court highlighted the fundamental legal standard that an extra-judicial confession, while admissible, is inherently weak and typically requires corroboration by independent, reliable circumstances to sustain a conviction. The bench expressed significant skepticism regarding the spontaneity and truthfulness of the confession, given that the accused had approached the VRO—a complete stranger—without any plausible reason or established rapport.

"In the ordinary course of human conduct, it is highly improbable that the accused would voluntarily approach a stranger and confess to the commission of a serious offence," the judges observed. "In such circumstances, the alleged extra-judicial confession cannot be made basis for recording a conviction ." The court further noted that the records provided no explanation for why the couple chose to approach this specific official, and the statement itself lacked the corroborative details that would typically lend it credibility in a high-stakes criminal proceeding.

The bench evaluated the evidence against existing legal precedents, including the principles established by the Supreme Court of India in cases where extra-judicial confessions made to persons without close association were deemed untrustworthy. The court observed that the lack of prior acquaintance made the confession highly improbable and rendered it insufficient as the primary basis for a life sentence. By the time the case reached the High Court, the lack of forensic or material evidence connecting the accused to the crime scene left the extra-judicial confession isolated, ultimately failing the test of voluntariness and reliability required for a criminal conviction.

Addressing the prosecution's reliance on the confession, the court clarified that although it is possible for a conviction to stand on an extra-judicial confession if it is proven to be voluntary and truthful, the surrounding circumstances must be examined with extreme care. Because the prosecution could not demonstrate any other incriminating evidence—having lost the testimony of key witnesses and failing to link the forensic data to the accused—the integrity of the trial court’s initial decision was deemed compromised.

The appellate court’s ruling serves as a rigorous reminder of the evidentiary thresholds required in criminal litigation, particularly when the state’s case relies upon testimonies that lack corroboration. By setting aside the judgment dated June 27, 2018, the bench underscored the necessity of robust, verifiable proof in matters of serious criminal charges. The final order mandated that any fines previously paid by the appellants in connection with the case be refunded, and the individuals were ordered to be set at liberty forthwith, provided they are not required to be detained in connection with any other ongoing legal matters. With this acquittal, the division bench closed the matter, effectively ending the long-standing legal proceedings against the couple.