In CRIMINAL APPEAL No.2230 of 2010-SC- Conviction can be sustained on basis of extra-judicial confession provided that it is proved to be voluntary & truthful:Top Court acquits murder accused
Justices Abhay S. Oka & Rajesh Bindal [14-03-2023]

Read Judgment: Pawan Kumar Chourasia v. State of Bihar 

Tulip Kanth

New Delhi, March 15, 2023: While discarding evidence in the form of extra-judicial confession and acquitting a man in a murder case, the Supreme Court has opined that if an extra-judicial confession is corroborated by other evidence on record, it acquires more credibility.

Throwing light on the principles relating to extra-judicial confession, the Division Bench of Justice Abhay S. Oka and Justice Rajesh Bindal, asserted, “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”

The facts of the case were such that an FIR was registered on the basis of the statement of the first informant and it was alleged that in the year 1989, the fifth witness had lodged a missing report in respect of his son Kamlesh and nephew Bulla, son of one Hira Chaurasia. The fifth witness received a secret information that both the boys had been murdered by the present appellant in association with others. 

Therefore, he along with the persons went to the house of the appellant and made inquiries. Though initially, the appellant denied, after some persuasion, he admitted in presence of the witnesses that he and four others (co-accused) had killed both the boys by strangulating them and had concealed their bodies in the field. 

The prosecution examined 10 witnesses.According to the prosecution case, the appellant had made a confession in presence of these witnesses. Three witnesses supported the prosecution case and deposed about the extra-judicial confession made by the appellant to them.The conviction of the appellant was based on the extra-judicial confession. Both the Courts had believed the prosecution case regarding the alleged confession.

The appellant-accused had approached the Top Court as he had been convicted and sentenced to undergo life imprisonment for offence under Section 302 read with Section 34 of IPC. The High Court confirmed the conviction of the appellant, whereas the remaining four accused were acquitted.

Noting that the Court has to be satisfied with the reliability of the confession keeping in view the circumstances in which it is made, the Bench observed that none of the three witnesses who supported the prosecution, had stated that the appellant was either their relative or a close acquaintance. They had not even stated that they personally knew the appellant. 

“There is nothing on record to show that the relationship between the appellant and these three witnesses was such that the appellant had implicit faith in these three witnesses and, therefore, he confided with them”, the Bench said while also observing that even after the alleged extra-judicial confession of committing murder was made before them by the appellant, the witnesses did not report to the police. 

The prosecution case was that without informing the police, they accompanied the appellant to the field of Bhagirath where dead bodies were found buried. This conduct of the witnesses, according to the Bench, was unusual and unnatural. The Bench also noticed that these witnesses were not consistent about the place at which the alleged confession was made.

“There is no explanation offered by the prosecution for not examining Bhagirath who was also present according to PW-9 when the alleged confession was made. This omission becomes more significant as the dead bodies were allegedly found in his land”, the Bench further added.

The Court affirmed the view that the prosecution's case about extra-judicial confession did not inspire confidence at all and there were 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”, the Bench held while allowing the appeal.