Evidentiary Value Of Extra-Judicial Confession Also Depends On Person To Whom It Is Made: Supreme Court

Highlighting the evidentiary value and the circumstances under which extra-judicial confessions can be accepted, the Supreme Court recently acquitted a man who was convicted of double murders under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.

“Hence, the prosecution’s case about extra¬judicial confession does not inspire confidence at all. Moreover, there are no other circumstances brought on record which could support or corroborate the prosecution case. Therefore, in our considered view, the evidence in form of the extra-judicial confession of the appellant deserves to be discarded. Admittedly, there is no other evidence against the appellant”, a Bench of Justices Abhay S Oka and Rajesh Bindal observed,

The allegation against the appellant was that he had murdered two boys, who were reported to be missing, in association with others. The appellant was charged for offences under Section 302 read with Section 34 of IPC and was sentenced to undergo life imprisonment. The High Court confirmed the conviction of the appellant, whereas the remaining four accused were acquitted. The conviction of the appellant was based on the extra¬judicial confession.

At the outset, the Court noted that the extra-judicial confession, though a weak piece of evidence, can be sustained provided its voluntary. The evidentiary value of an extra-judicial confession also depends on the person to whom it is made, it added.

“Generally, it is a weak piece of evidence. However, a conviction can be sustained on the basis of extra¬judicial confession provided that the confession is proved to be voluntary and truthful. It should be free of any inducement. The evidentiary value of such confession also depends on the person to whom it is made. Going by the natural course of human conduct, normally, a person would confide about a crime committed by him only with such a person in whom he has implicit faith.

"Normally, a person would not make a confession to someone who is totally a stranger to him", the court explained. “Moreover, the Court has to be satisfied with the reliability of the confession keeping in view the circumstances in which it is made. As a matter of rule, corroboration is not required. However, if an extra¬judicial confession is corroborated by other evidence on record, it acquires more credibility”.

After analysing the evidence in the present case, the court highlighted the various inconsistencies with the versions of the prosecution witnesses.

Out of these three witnesses, only PW¬7 stated that the appellant made the confession in his own house, the Court noted. According to the version of PW-7, in the afternoon of June 20, 1989 (the day the FIR was registered), he was informed by PW¬5 that the appellant had murdered both the boys. “There is no explanation as to why PW-7 did not approach the police. This conduct of the witness is unnatural”, the Court observed.

Regarding PW 8, though he had knowledge about the alleged confession made by the appellant on June 6, 1989, he did not complain to the police. The omission to report to the police is very significant as he was admittedly the uncle of the deceased Bulla. “His silence creates more suspicion about the prosecution case”, the Court remarked.

Noting this, the Court pointed out that none of these three witnesses who supported the prosecution, stated that the appellant was either their relative or a close acquaintance. In fact, they have not even stated that they personally knew the appellant.

“There is nothing on record to show that the relationship between the appellant and these 6 three witnesses was such that the appellant had implicit faith in these three witnesses and, therefore, he confided with them.”

Even after the alleged extra¬judicial confession of committing murder was made before them by the appellant, PW¬7 to PW¬9 did not report to the police. The Bench raised eyebrows on this conduct of the witnesses.

“The prosecution case is that without informing the police, they accompanied the appellant to the field of Bhagirath where dead bodies were found buried. This conduct of PW¬7 to PW-9 is unusual and unnatural. PW¬7 to PW¬9 are not consistent about the place at which the alleged confession was made.”

On these grounds, the Bench allowed the appeal and set aside the challenged judgements.

Case Title: Pawan Kumar Chourasia Versus State of Bihar | Criminal Appeal No.2230 Of 2010 

Citation : 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 197

Indian Evidence Act 1872- Extra-judicial confession- Generally, it is a weak piece of evidence. However, a conviction can be sustained on the basis of extra¬judicial confession provided that the confession is proved to be voluntary and truthful. It should be free of any inducement. The evidentiary value of such confession also depends on the person to whom it is made. Going by the natural course of human conduct, normally, a person would confide about a crime committed by him only with such a person in whom he has implicit faith - Para 5

Indian Evidence Act 1872- Extra-judicial confession- Normally, a person would not make a confession to someone who is totally a stranger to him, the court explained. “Moreover, the Court has to be satisfied with the reliability of the confession keeping in view the circumstances in which it is made. As a matter of rule, corroboration is not required. However, if an extra¬judicial confession is corroborated by other evidence on record, it acquires more credibility - Para 5

Click Here To Read/Download Judgment