Conviction Solely On The Basis Of Extra Judicial Confession Cannot Be Sustained: Supreme Court

Extra­ judicial confession was a weak piece of evidence and unless there was some corroboration, the conviction solely on the basis of extra ­judicial confession could not be sustained, the Supreme Court observed while upholding a High Court judgment which acquitted a murder accused.

The prosecution case was that the accused had killed his wife with a lathi, dragged her 100 feet away from the house and set her on fire in order to destroy the evidence. The trial court, after appreciating the evidence, convicted the accused for the offence punishable under Section 302 and 201 of the IPC. Allowing the appeal filed by the accused, the Rajasthan High Court set aside the Trial Court judgment.

In appeal before the Apex Court, the State through Advocate Vishal Meghwal contended that the extrajudicial confession made by the accused before one Guman Singh (PW­4) is such, which would inspire confidence in the judicial mind. 

Referring to the High Court judgment, the bench comprising Justices BR Gavai and PS Narasimha observed: 

"The High Court, relying on the judgment of this Court in the case of State of Punjab v. Bhajan Singh and Others , so also in the case of Gopal Sah v. State of Bihar has held that extra­judicial confession was a weak piece of evidence and unless there was some corroboration, the conviction solely on the basis of extra­judicial confession could not be sustained. The view taken by the High Court cannot be said to be either impossible or perverse meriting our interference"

The court also noted that the scope of interference in an appeal against acquittal is very limited.

"Unless it is found that the view taken by the Court is impossible or perverse, it is not permissible to interfere with the finding of acquittal. Equally if two views are 3 possible, it is not permissible to set aside an order of acquittal, merely because the Appellate Court finds the way of conviction to be more probable. The interference would be warranted only if the view taken is not possible at all.", the bench said.

Case details

State of Rajasthan vs Kistoora Ram | 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 663 | CrA 2119 OF 2010 | 28 July 2022 | Justices BR Gavai and PS Narasimha 

Headnotes

Criminal Trial - Extra­judicial confession was a weak piece of evidence and unless there was some corroboration, the conviction solely on the basis of extra­judicial confession could not be sustained. (Para 10)

Constitution of India, 1950 ; Article 136 - Criminal appeal -  The scope of interference in an appeal against acquittal is very limited. Unless it is found that the view taken by the Court is impossible or perverse, it is not permissible to interfere with the finding of acquittal. Equally if two views are possible, it is not permissible to set aside an order of acquittal, merely because the Appellate Court finds the way of conviction to be more probable. The interference would be warranted only if the view taken is not possible at all. (Para 8)

Click here to Read/Download Judgment