COURTESY:MR RAVIT KHANNA. THESE IS NO SUCH RULE OR PRESUMPTION THAT CONVICTION CANNOT BE BASED ON EXTRA JUDICIAL CONFESSION ALONE. Factors such as voluntary nature of the confession, truthfulness, previous enmity ,motive, false implication ,nearness of the Witness with the accused, time gap between the crime and the confession so on and so forth must be closely scrutinised in order to judge the reliability/admissibility of such confessions .Here are some case laws on the point. Gura Singh v. State of Rajasthan (2001) 2 SCC 205 and Sahadevan and Anr. v. State of Tamil Nadu (2012) 6 SCC 403. In Gura Singh’s case (supra) a two-Judge Bench of this Court was also dealing with an extra judicial confession and the question whether the same could be made a basis for recording the conviction against the accused. This Court held that despite the inherent weakness of an extra judicial confession as a piece of evidence, the same cannot be ignored if it is otherwise shown to be voluntary and truthful. This Court also held that extra judicial confession cannot always be termed as tainted evidence and that corroboration of such evidence is required only as a measure of abundant caution. If the Court found the witness to whom confession was made to be trustworthy and that the confession was true and voluntary, a conviction can be founded on such evidence alone. More importantly, the Court declared that Courts cannot start with the presumption that extra judicial confession is always suspect or a weak type of evidence but it would depend on the nature of the circumstances, the time when the confession is made and the credibility of the witnesses who speak about such a confession and whether the confession is voluntary and truthful. 6. In Sahadevan’s case (supra) a two-Judge Bench of the Court comprehensively reviewed the case law on the subject and concluded that an extra judicial confession is an admissible piece of evidence capable of supporting the conviction of an accused provided the same is made voluntarily and is otherwise found to be truthful. The Apex Court also reiterated the principle that if an extra judicial confession is supported by a chain of cogent circumstances and is corroborated by other evidence, it acquires credibility. To the same effect are the decisions of this Court in Balbir Singh and Anr. V. State of Punjab 1996 (SCC) Crl. 1158 and Jaspal Singh @ Pali v. State of Punjab (1997) 1 SCC 510. Maghar Singh vs. State of Punjab, AIR 1975 SC 132O : (1975 Cri LJ 1102)The Court held that the evidence in the form of extra judicial confession made by the accused to witnesses cannot be always termed to be a tainted evidence. Corroboration of such evidence is required only by way of abundant caution. If the Court believe the witness before whom the confession is made and is satisfied that the confession was true and voluntarily made, then the conviction can be founded on such evidence alone. In Narayan Singh vs. State of M. P., AIR 1985 SC 1678 : (1985 Cri LJ 1862) Court cautioned that it is not open to the Court trying the criminal case to start with presumption that extra judicial confession is always a weak type of evidence. It would depend on the nature of the circumstances, the time when the confession is made and the credibility of the witnesses who speak for such a confession. The retraction of extra judicial confession which is a usual phenomenon in criminal cases would by itself not weaken the case of the prosecution based upon such a confession . In Kishore Chand vs. State of M.P., AIR 1990 SC 2140 : (1990 Cri LJ 2289) the Court held that an unambiguous extra judicial confession possessies high probative value force as it emanates from the person who committed the crime and is admissible in evidence provided it is free from suspicion and suggestion of any falsity. However, before relying on the alleged confession, the Court has to be satisfied that it is voluntary and is not the result of inducement, threat or promise envisaged under Section 24 of the Evidence Act or was brought about in suspicious circumstances to circumvent Sections 25 and 26. The Court is required to look into the surrounding circumstances to find out as to whether such confession is not inspired by any improper or collateral consideration or circumvention of law suggesting that it may not be true. All relevant circumstances such as the person to whom the confession is made, the time and place of making it, the circumstances in which it was made have to be scrutinised. To the same effect is the judgment in Baldev Raj vs. State of Haryana, AIR 1991 SC 37 : (1990 Cri LJ 2643). After referring to the judgment in Piara Singh vs. State of Punjab, AIR 1977 SC 2274 : (1977 Cri LJ 1941), the Court in Madan Gopal Kakkad vs. Naval Dubey, JT 1992 (3) SC 270, held that the extra judicial confession which is not obtained by coercion, promise of favour or false hope and is plenary in character and voluntary in nature can be made the basis for conviction even without corroboration
Posted on: Sat, 22 Jun 2013 00:41:54 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015