Evidentiary Value Of Extra-Judicial Confession Also Depends On Person To Whom It Is Made: Supreme Court
Evidentiary Value of Extra-Judicial Confession and the Person to Whom It Is Made
An extra-judicial confession is a statement made by the accused voluntarily outside the court or police custody, admitting to the commission of a crime. Unlike judicial confession (made in court) or confessions made before a magistrate, an extra-judicial confession is not conclusive proof of guilt but can be used as corroborative evidence.
The Supreme Court of India has consistently held that the credibility and weight of an extra-judicial confession depend significantly on the person to whom it is made and the circumstances under which it is made.
Key Legal Principles:
Confession to a Person Interested in the Case:
A confession made to a person who has an interest in the case (e.g., co-accused, or someone who might benefit from the confession) is usually not reliable.
The Supreme Court has held that confessions made to a co-accused or close relative of the accused cannot be acted upon unless corroborated by independent evidence.
Confession to a Neutral or Disinterested Person:
A confession made to a stranger or a neutral person who has no interest in the case carries more evidentiary value.
Such a confession is more likely to be voluntary and truthful.
Circumstances and Spontaneity:
The court examines whether the confession was made spontaneously, without any inducement, threat, or promise.
If the confession is voluntary and made in a natural manner, it holds greater weight.
Corroboration Requirement:
Since extra-judicial confessions are not substantive proof by themselves, courts require corroboration by other evidence to convict.
Important Supreme Court Cases:
1. R. v. Ibrahim AIR 1915 PC 282
It was held that a confession made to a co-accused is not admissible against another accused.
This principle is foundational in Indian criminal jurisprudence.
2. Nathulal v. State of Madhya Pradesh, AIR 1954 SC 381
The court stated that a confession made to a stranger or a disinterested person is entitled to greater credence.
The nature of the relationship between the confessor and the person to whom the confession is made is critical.
3. State of Rajasthan v. Kashi Ram, (2006) 12 SCC 254
The Court reiterated that extra-judicial confession, if voluntary and trustworthy, may form a basis for conviction.
The Court also emphasized the importance of the person’s credibility to whom the confession is made.
4. King Emperor v. Manju AIR 1933 PC 247
Highlighted that a confession to a close relative or friend might be a natural spontaneous admission but needs corroboration.
The extra-judicial confession should be considered in the context of the overall evidence.
5. Mohan Singh v. State of Punjab, (1969) 3 SCC 745
The court observed that extra-judicial confessions can be the most reliable piece of evidence if they are made spontaneously and without inducement.
But the court must carefully scrutinize the circumstances under which it was made, especially the person to whom it was made.
6. Tuka Ram v. State of Maharashtra, (1970) 3 SCC 468
Extra-judicial confession to a disinterested person was accepted as credible because the person was a neutral witness.
Reinforced the principle that the relationship and interest of the person receiving the confession is crucial.
Summary Table
| Nature of Person to Whom Confession Made | Evidentiary Value | Requirement |
|---|---|---|
| Co-accused or interested person | Low or no value | Requires strong corroboration |
| Close relative or friend | Moderate; natural admission | Needs corroboration |
| Stranger or disinterested person | High, if voluntary and spontaneous | Strong evidence can be drawn |
Conclusion:
The Supreme Court’s consistent position is that the evidentiary value of an extra-judicial confession cannot be viewed in isolation but must be evaluated in light of the person to whom it was made, the surrounding circumstances, and the corroborative evidence available. Confessions to neutral and disinterested persons carry greater weight, while those to interested persons are viewed with suspicion and need independent corroboration before acting upon them.
RELATED Blog
0 comments