Sahab Singh v. State of Haryana
Supreme Court of India, 2 September 2026, 2 judges, 2026 INSC 945
The Supreme Court acquitted the appellant of murder and related offences, holding that a case resting on last seen evidence, an uncorroborated extra-judicial confession and a disclosure statement that discovered no new fact was not proved beyond reasonable doubt.
Facts
A six year old boy went missing on the night of 11.03.2007 and his body was found in a village well the next day. The post mortem gave the cause of death as asphyxia from smothering and cervical spinal injury, and the prosecution alleged unnatural sexual assault. On 14.03.2007 the village Sarpanch produced the appellant at the police station, saying he had confessed to him. A disclosure statement was recorded and the appellant pointed out the spots. Shop witnesses said he had bought namkeen and cold tablets, and an open namkeen packet had been seized at the site on 12.03.2007. The Sessions Court, Ambala convicted him under Sections 302, 201 and 377 IPC and sentenced him to life imprisonment, and the Punjab and Haryana High Court dismissed his appeal. He had served over 16 years and 7 months.
Questions before the Court
- Whether the circumstantial evidence, including the last seen theory, proved the appellant's guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
- Whether the alleged extra-judicial confession to the village Sarpanch could support the conviction.
- Whether the disclosure statement and the pointing out of spots already known to the police were admissible under Section 27 of the Evidence Act.
What the Court held
- The last seen theory was not borne out by the witnesses. The shopkeeper did not say a child was with the appellant, and the other witness mentioned the child only in cross-examination, not in chief or in his police statement, which was an improvement.
- An extra-judicial confession is a weak piece of evidence and cannot by itself be the sole basis of conviction without independent and cogent corroboration. There was no explanation why the appellant would confess to a Sarpanch with whom he had no connection, and witnesses said the police brought him to the shop on 12.03.2007, two days before the alleged confession.
- Section 27 admits only so much of the information as relates distinctly to a fact discovered. Pointing out spots already known to the police, for which a site plan existed, discovered no new fact, so the disclosure statement could not be considered.
- The High Court wrongly held that the disclosure led to recovery of the body, which was found two days before the statement. Without a DNA match, the onus could not be shifted to the accused to explain the semen.
- With several missing links in the chain, the benefit of doubt went to the appellant. The conviction was set aside and his release was affirmed.
Why it matters
The judgment restates, on the facts of a circumstantial evidence case, that an extra-judicial confession needs independent corroboration, that Section 27 of the Evidence Act requires discovery of a new fact and does not cover identification of places already known to the police, and that the prosecution cannot shift the burden to the accused on forensic evidence it has not linked to him.
In the Court's words
Copied from the official judgment; each passage links to its page.
“The prosecution has placed strong reliance on the alleged disclosure statement (Ex. PT). It may be noticed that there is no discovery of a fact or recovery of any incriminating article made pursuant to the alleged disclosure statement. The alleged identification of the spot of the incident is merely an identification of an area which was already known to the police, of which even a site plan had already been prepared on 12.03.2007. As such, no reliance can be placed on the alleged disclosure statement (Ex. PT).”
“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.”
“As noticed above, 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.”
Provisions interpreted
- Section 27, Indian Evidence Act, 1872Now: BSA 23 (NCRB correspondence table)
- Section 302, Indian Penal Code, 1860Now: BNS 103 (NCRB correspondence table)
- Section 377, Indian Penal Code, 1860
- Section 201, Indian Penal Code, 1860Now: BNS 238 (NCRB correspondence table)
Case and bench
- Parties
- Sahab Singh alias Sat Pal v. State of Haryana
- Case
- Criminal Appeal No. 4158 of 2026 (Arising out of Special Leave Petition (Crl) No. 3710 of 2026)
- Decided
- 2 September 2026
- Bench
- Sanjay Kumar, Sanjeev Sachdeva
- Opinions
- Unanimous. Judgment of the Court delivered by Sanjeev Sachdeva, J., signed also by Sanjay Kumar, J.