Confession Cannot Substitute Proof: Bombay High Court Acquits Husband Convicted of Wife’s Murder

“Conviction Based on Inadmissible Confession and Infirm Recovery is Unsustainable” –  In a compelling reaffirmation of the foundational principles of criminal jurisprudence, the Bombay High Court overturned the conviction of a man accused of murdering his wife, citing serious lapses in procedure, absence of motive, and failure to establish a complete chain of circumstantial evidence. The Division Bench of Justice Manjusha Deshpande and Justice Manish Pitale held that the trial was vitiated due to illegally relying on a judicial confession, which was neither proven voluntary nor put to the accused during his examination under Section 313 CrPC.

In Deepak Madhu Waghmare v. State of Maharashtra, the appellant was convicted by the Sessions Court at Raigad-Alibaug in 2019 for the murder of his wife Sundar, allegedly committed using a sickle, and sentenced to life imprisonment under Section 302 IPC. The prosecution case relied entirely on circumstantial evidence, including motive, recovery of weapon and blood-stained clothes, an FSL report, and a so-called “voluntary confession” recorded under Section 164 CrPC. The High Court, however, found the conviction to be “fatally flawed” both on law and facts.

“Judicial Confession Is Not Substantive Evidence Unless Corroborated and Put to Accused” – Court Holds Violation of Article 20(3) and Natural Justice

One of the gravest procedural defects, according to the Court, was the trial court’s reliance on a confessional statement recorded under Section 164 CrPC, without confronting the accused with the statement during his examination under Section 313 CrPC. The Bench found this omission to be a violation of natural justice, holding:

“The accused was not confronted with the inculpatory evidence produced by the prosecution in the form of his confessional statement... This has resulted in depriving him of an opportunity to deny and explain it... This denial is not only a statutory violation but also infringement of his fundamental right guaranteed by Article 20(3) of the Constitution of India.” [Para 32]

Citing the Supreme Court’s decisions in Vijaya Singh v. State of Uttarakhand and Samsul Haque v. State of Assam, the Court reiterated that confessions under Section 164 CrPC are not substantive evidence and can only be used for corroboration, not as a standalone basis for conviction:

“A confessional statement is not a substantive piece of evidence... It cannot take the place of substantive evidence.” [Para 27]

Further, the appellant had categorically denied giving a voluntary confession, and recorded his objection before the Magistrate, stating he was under pressure from the police — an aspect ignored by the trial court.

"Suspicion, Even Strong, Cannot Replace Proof" – Motive Allegation Held Unsubstantiated

The prosecution’s primary theory was that the appellant murdered his wife due to suspicions of infidelity, allegedly because she worked for one Appanna Reddy, with whom she was said to have had an illicit relationship. However, the sole witness examined to prove motive — PW-4, a labour contractor — turned out to be of no help.

“PW-4 admitted that he had never seen the deceased working with Appanna, nor any quarrel between the accused and deceased. His entire testimony was based on hearsay.” [Paras 24–25]

The High Court held that failure to prove motive in a case based entirely on circumstantial evidence is a fatal flaw:

“Failure to prove ‘Motive’ proves fatal to the case of prosecution... There is always a presumption in favour of the innocence of the accused.” [Para 23]

“Recovery From an Open Space and Inconsistent Panchnamas Erode Evidentiary Value”

The recovery of clothes and the murder weapon (sickle), which were claimed to be key pieces of evidence, was found to be dubious and procedurally defective. Clothes were allegedly recovered from an open, accessible area behind the accused’s house, while the sickle showed no traces of blood as per the FSL report, contrary to the prosecution’s claim.

“Due to the inconsistency in the evidence produced by the prosecution... and seizure from an open space accessible to all, the corroborative evidence falls short of the standard of proof necessary in circumstantial evidence cases.” [Para 20]

Moreover, the timings recorded in the recovery panchnamas and those stated by the panch witnesses did not match — leading the Court to suspect fabrication or lack of reliability.

“Scientific Evidence Without Chain of Custody is Worthless” – Forensic Report Not Sufficient

Although blood of group A (belonging to the deceased) was found on the accused’s Bermuda shorts, the Court held that this single finding, absent proper chain of custody, was insufficient to convict. Crucially, no police officer or panch witness who carried the samples to the FSL was examined, which broke the chain of custody.

“The failure to examine the carrier... is also a fatal flaw and forms a missing link in the chain of evidence.” [Para 35]

Citing the Supreme Court’s guidance in Prakash Nishad v. State of Maharashtra and Putai v. State of U.P., the Court emphasized that scientific evidence must be handled with strict procedural discipline, and samples must be proven to have been sealed, stored, and delivered without contamination.

"Prosecution Examined Only 6 Witnesses, Half Irrelevant" – Court Flags Shoddy Investigation and Trial

The Bench found that the prosecution examined only six witnesses, out of which more than half were irrelevant, and even the person who filed the FIR and the first person who saw the deceased were not examined.

“The prosecution has miserably failed to prove the guilt of the accused... Neither the chain of circumstantial evidence is completely established, nor the guilt of accused has been proved beyond reasonable doubt.” [Para 41]

It held that the Sessions Judge committed serious errors, including:

• Relying on a non-substantive confession as proof of guilt,

• Not questioning the accused about the confession under Section 313 CrPC, and

• Failing to recognize the procedural violations in evidence collection.

Conviction Quashed, Accused Ordered Released

Finding the conviction legally untenable, the Court allowed the appeal and acquitted the appellant of all charges:

“The judgment and order dated 15.01.2019 passed by the Sessions Judge, Raigad at Alibaug... is quashed and set aside. The appellant shall be released forthwith, if not required in any other case, subject to execution of a PR bond under Section 437A CrPC.” [Order – Para 42]

This decision not only exonerates an individual from a potentially wrongful conviction but also reasserts the indispensable role of procedural integrity, fair trial rights, and judicial discipline in criminal adjudication — especially in cases reliant on circumstantial evidence and confession.

Date of Decision: 19 January 2026