Shanti Devi v. State of Haryana (2025 INSC 987)
Supreme Court Mandates Suo Motu Acquittal of Non-Appealing Co-Accused When Evidence Fails

Introduction

The decision in Shanti Devi v. State of Haryana marks a significant development in Indian criminal jurisprudence on two fronts: (i) it restates, with renewed vigour, the rigorous thresholds that circumstantial-evidence cases must meet, and (ii) it crystallises the Court’s power – indeed its obligation – to extend the benefit of an acquittal suo motu to a non-appealing co-accused when the same infirm evidence underlies all convictions.

The case concerned the alleged murder of one Balwant in December 1997. Three persons – Shanti Devi (appellant), her son Rajbir, and one Veena – were tried and convicted by the Sessions Court under sections 302/34 and 201/34 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). The Punjab & Haryana High Court affirmed the convictions in May 2024. Veena died pending appeal; Rajbir did not appeal further, while Shanti Devi approached the Supreme Court by special leave.

With no direct evidence, the prosecution relied on a web of circumstantial strands: alleged motive, “last-seen” testimony, recovery of weapons, and a series of extra-judicial confessions. The Supreme Court systematically dismantled each strand, ultimately acquitting Shanti Devi – and, crucially, extending the acquittal to the non-appealing Rajbir.

Summary of the Judgment

• The Court reaffirmed the “five golden principles” of circumstantial evidence laid down in Sharad Birdhichand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra.
• It found every circumstance projected by the prosecution either unproved, contradictory, or inadmissible:
  • Motive not established – complainant’s testimony contradictory and key witness (deceased’s wife) withheld.
  • Last-seen and extra-judicial confession witnesses branded unreliable “chance” witnesses.
  • Recoveries dubious; forensic reports showed no human blood on the weapons; Section 27 Evidence Act requirements not met.
• Held that courts below ignored critical infirmities, mis-applied law on extra-judicial confessions (Sections 25–27 Evidence Act) and over-relied on negative forensic material.
• Allowed Shanti Devi’s appeal, set aside convictions, ordered her immediate release.
• Invoking equitable powers and precedent (Sahadevan v. State of Tamil Nadu), the Court suo motu extended the benefit of acquittal to Rajbir, noting his poverty, lack of legal assistance, and identical evidentiary footing.

Analysis

A. Precedents Cited

1. Sharad Birdhichand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra (1984) 4 SCC 116 – Source of the celebrated five-point test for circumstantial evidence; used as the analytic spine of the judgment.
2. Shivaji Sahabrao Bobade v. State of Maharashtra (1973) 2 SCC 793 – Quoted for the distinction between “may be” and “must be” guilt.
3. Sahadevan v. State of Tamil Nadu (2012) 6 SCC 403 – Laid down principles on extra-judicial confessions and contained dicta allowing benefit of doubt to non-appealing accused; directly relied upon to acquit Rajbir.

B. Legal Reasoning

1. Strict evaluation of circumstantial chain: Each link (motive, last-seen, confession, recovery) failed the “conclusive, exclusive, complete” test of Sharad Sarda. Defects were substantive, not peripheral.
2. Admissibility under Evidence Act:
   • Confessions made “in presence of police” are barred by Sections 25–26.
   • Section 27 allows only that portion leading to discovery; here the Court found disclosures fabricated post-recovery.
3. Forensic science contra-indications: Negative serology on weapons undermined prosecution; Court chastised lower courts for ignoring scientific neutrality.
4. Suo Motu Extension of Relief: Invoking Articles 136 & 142 of the Constitution and drawing from Sahadevan, the Bench held that when evidence is “common and equally infirm,” fundamental fairness obliges the apex court to acquit even a silent co-accused, especially where poverty or lack of representation obstructs appeal.

C. Impact of the Judgment

• Elevates judicial duty: Converts what was previously a discretionary benevolence (extending benefit to non-appealing accused) into a near-mandatory exercise when evidence is identically flawed.
• Raises bar for circumstantial prosecutions: Re-emphasises that mere recovery or motley confessions are insufficient; scientific corroboration and coherence are indispensable.
• Guidance to trial & appellate courts: Explicit warning against:
  • Admitting whole confessional statements recorded by police.
  • Relying on negative or inconclusive FSL reports as incriminating.
  • Blindly accepting “chance” witnesses without demonstrable credibility.
• Access-to-justice dimension: Underscores constitutional imperative to safeguard rights of indigent prisoners who may lack resources to appeal.

Complex Concepts Simplified

• Circumstantial Evidence: Proof derived from surrounding facts; conviction permissible only if the established circumstances “point unerringly” to guilt and exclude all innocent hypotheses.
• Extra-Judicial Confession: A confession made outside court. It is admissible but inherently weak unless corroborated. If made to, or in presence of, police (without a Magistrate), Sections 25–26 Evidence Act render it inadmissible.
• Section 27 Evidence Act: Carves out an exception – only that part of an accused’s statement leading to discovery of a fact (e.g., weapon) is admissible. The discovery must be subsequent to the statement; reverse chronology is fatal.
• Suo Motu Judicial Power: Authority exercised by a court on its own initiative. The Supreme Court used this to acquit a person who had not appealed, invoking its broad constitutional powers to do “complete justice.”

Conclusion

The Supreme Court’s ruling in Shanti Devi is more than a routine acquittal; it is a clarion call for evidentiary discipline and judicial vigilance. By tearing down a prosecution edifice built on conjecture, the Court reaffirmed the sanctity of the “must be guilty” standard. Most notably, it transformed compassionate discretion into a jurisprudential principle: whenever the evidentiary collapse is common to all accused, the Court must extend the benefit even to those who, through poverty or ignorance, never reach its doors.

Future prosecutions premised on circumstantial evidence will be measured against this rigorous benchmark, and appellate courts will be reminded of their proactive role in preventing miscarriages of justice – not only for appellants before them but for every similarly situated convict.