SC Acquits Policeman’s Wife, Relatives in 2006 Murder of Colleague Over Loan Dispute

The Supreme Court on September 22, 2025 set aside the conviction of a policeman’s wife, her brother and brother-in-law who had been sentenced to life imprisonment for the 2006 murder of another policeman, holding that the prosecution failed to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt and that confessional statements made in police custody were inadmissible.

A bench of Justices K V Vishwanathan and K Vinod Chandran acquitted appellant Nagamma @ Nagarathna and others, finding that their alleged extra-judicial confessions before the Station House Officer and other police personnel immediately after the incident could not be relied upon. The Court underscored that Section 25 of the Indian Evidence Act bars use of confessions made to police officers, while Section 26 further prohibits reliance on confessions made in police custody unless recorded in the presence of a Magistrate.

According to the prosecution, the deceased policeman, who was then working as a driver to the Superintendent of Police, had been pressing Nagamma to repay a loan of Rs. one lakh. On the night of March 10, 2006, she allegedly invited him to her residence on the pretext of repayment. Once inside, he was attacked by her brother and brother-in-law who threw chilli powder into his eyes and hacked him to death with a chopper. The prosecution case further alleged that after sunrise Nagamma went to the police station, confessed to the killing, and led police to the recovery of the body.

The trial court acquitted the deceased’s wife’s husband, himself a policeman, after finding that he was on duty at another police station at the relevant time. However, the trial court convicted Nagamma, her brother, and brother-in-law, sentencing them to life imprisonment. The High Court later confirmed the conviction.

In appeal, the Supreme Court scrutinised both the evidentiary gaps and contradictions in the prosecution’s narrative. It noted that the alleged motive of the financial dispute was unconvincing and not properly established. “We cannot find a motive in this case; of the financial transaction having led to the crime,” the bench observed, while clarifying that absence of motive alone does not vitiate a prosecution if other circumstances form an unbroken chain.

The Court found that in her statement, the wife of the deceased did not categorically state that the deceased had left home to recover the loan after a phone call. It also noted a lack of clarity on whether he returned home in the evening. The prosecution claimed the deceased arrived at the accused’s residence around 10 pm, whereas medical evidence confirmed death occurred around 2 pm. “What happened in the interregnum is not clear and together with what we noticed above, there is a suspicion as to the genesis and origin of the crime which compounds the reasonable doubt regarding the prosecution case,” the bench said.

The judges further held that there was no credible evidence proving the body was recovered from the accused’s house. The recovery evidence itself was described as sketchy and unreliable. Two tenants of the accused, projected as eyewitnesses, had turned completely hostile during trial. Despite this, both the trial court and the High Court concluded that parts of their testimony could support conviction. Rejecting this view, the Supreme Court observed, “We are at a loss to understand how the High Court and the trial court made an observation that though they were declared hostile, there was credible material in their evidence pointing to the culpability of the accused.”

Reiterating the standard applicable in circumstantial evidence cases, the Court stated that conviction is sustainable only when the chain of circumstances is complete and points solely to guilt, excluding all reasonable doubt. “The motive projected and the crime itself has not at all been proved and there is no circumstance leading to the culpability of the accused. The presence of the dead body in the house of the accused is also under a cloud and in any event, that, with the absence of a proper explanation cannot by itself bring home a conviction,” the bench concluded.

Holding that the conviction could not be sustained, the Supreme Court set aside the judgments of the trial court and High Court, acquitting the accused and directing their release if not required in any other case.

Case Title: Nagamma @ Nagarathna & Ors vs The State of Karnataka


Bench: Justices K V Vishwanathan and K Vinod Chandran
Date of

Judgment: September 22, 2025