Extra-Judicial Panchayat Confession Is No Evidence Against Co-Accused Unless Strictly Proved & Corroborated: J&K&L High Court
Reinforcing a core principle of criminal jurisprudence that a confession not recorded before a Magistrate has no substantive evidentiary value and cannot, by itself, be used to convict a co-accused, the High Court of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh has dismissed a criminal appeal against acquittal, holding that an alleged Panchayat confession being exculpatory, unproved, and uncorroborated could not sustain a conviction.
The Division Bench of Justice Sanjeev Kumar and Justice Sanjay Parihar affirmed that, at best, such a statement can only serve as a corroborative circumstance when independent evidence already connects the co-accused to the crime.
The appeal arose from a challenge to the judgment of acquittal passed by the Trial Court in an FIR registered for offences under Sections 302 and 120-B RPC. The prosecution case alleged that the deceased was murdered pursuant to a criminal conspiracy hatched by the accused, with the case resting primarily on three circumstances: an alleged extra-judicial confession before a Panchayat, the testimony of a minor child projected as an eye-witness, and alleged recoveries of weapons at the instance of the accused.
At the outset, the High Court reiterated the limits governing appellate interference with an acquittal. It noted that in an appeal against acquittal, the presumption of innocence stands reinforced by the Trial Court's verdict and interference is permissible only where the findings are perverse, manifestly illegal, or based on a complete misappreciation of material evidence. Where two views are reasonably possible, the view favouring the accused must ordinarily prevail, it underscored and remarked,
“In an appeal against acquittal, the presumption of innocence in favour of the accused stands further reinforced by the judgment of the Trial Court. Interference is warranted only when the findings recorded are perverse, manifestly illegal, or based on a complete misappreciation of material evidence,”.
The prosecution's primary plank was the alleged confession of the respondent before a Panchayat convened more than a month after the incident. On a close scrutiny, the Court found glaring inconsistencies in the versions attributed to the accused by different Panchayat witnesses.
Significantly, the alleged statement did not amount to a voluntary and unambiguous confession of guilt but, rather, sought to implicate other accused while exculpating the maker herself. The unexplained delay in convening the Panchayat and allegations of police influence further eroded its credibility.
Dealing with the legal admissibility of such a statement, the Court authoritatively held that a confession is not admissible unless made before a Magistrate, as mandated by law. Even under Section 30 of the Evidence Act, a confession can be used against a co-accused only if it is strictly proved and is a confession proper.
“What must be before the Court is a confession proper and not a mere incriminating circumstance or information. Such a confession is not evidence within the meaning of Section 3 of the Evidence Act against the non-maker and can be used only as a corroborative piece of evidence when other independent evidence connects the co-accused with the crime,” the Bench held.
Applying this principle to the facts at hand, the Court found that respondent had not made any inculpatory statement at all. Even assuming relevance, the alleged Panchayat version being exculpatory could not form the sole basis of conviction, particularly in the absence of independent corroboration, the court maintained.
The second circumstance relied upon by the prosecution was the testimony of a minor child of the deceased, projected as an eye-witness. The Trial Court had found serious infirmities in her testimony, and the High Court concurred. Her statement was recorded after considerable and unexplained delay, during which period she remained in the custody of a police official closely related to the deceased, creating a real possibility of tutoring. She admitted that it was pitch dark at the time of the occurrence and that she was in another room, rendering identification doubtful.
More damagingly, her version that the deceased was attacked while unconscious and only on the head stood contradicted by medical evidence, which recorded multiple injuries on different parts of the body and ruled out strangulation.
“Contradictions between ocular and medical evidence rendered the testimony unsafe without independent corroboration,” the Court noted, adding that once the child witness's testimony was found unreliable, the prosecution case substantially collapsed.
Summing up the evidence, the High Court held that although the deceased had undeniably died a homicidal death due to multiple injuries, the prosecution had failed to establish beyond reasonable doubt that the respondents were responsible for causing those injuries.
“In view of the glaring contradictions in the prosecution evidence and the absence of proof regarding the complicity of the respondents, the Trial Court has rightly concluded that the prosecution failed to establish its case beyond reasonable doubt,” the Bench concluded.
Finding no perversity or illegality in the acquittal warranting interference, the Division Bench dismissed the appeal and affirmed the judgment of the Trial Court.
Case Title: State Of J&K Vs Daleep Singh
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (JKL)