Confession Made By An Accused Before Panchayat Qualifies As Extra-Judicial Confession: Jharkhand High Court
The Jharkhand High Court has held that a confession made by an accused person before the Panchayat qualifies as an extra-judicial confession. The Court emphasised that an extra-judicial confession can serve as the basis for conviction if the person before whom the confession is made is impartial and not hostile toward the accused.A division bench comprising Justices Ananda Sen and Gautam...
The Jharkhand High Court has held that a confession made by an accused person before the Panchayat qualifies as an extra-judicial confession.
The Court emphasised that an extra-judicial confession can serve as the basis for conviction if the person before whom the confession is made is impartial and not hostile toward the accused.
A division bench comprising Justices Ananda Sen and Gautam Kumar Choudhary noted, “Confession made by the accused persons before the Panchayat will come within the meaning of extra-judicial confession and the veracity of it, is established by the recovery of the dead body from the jungle area. The place of recovery deep inside the jungle and knowledge of it to the appellants, raises a presumption under Section 106 of the Evidence Act.”“It was incumbent on their part to have explained as to how they came to know about it. Extra judicial confession is a weak piece of evidence, but in the present case, recovery made on its basis lends credence to its credibility. Extra Judicial confession can form the basis for conviction, if person before whom it is made, appears to be unbiased and not inimical to the accused. ... In (2009) 14 SCC 436, extra judicial confession made by the accused before the Administrative Officer of the village was found reliable and acted upon,” the Court highlighted.
According to the case facts, the informant's co-villager went missing, and during the search, it was revealed that he was last seen with his cousins (the appellants). After this, he wasn't seen again. During the interrogation, the appellants admitted to killing the co-villager at night. Thereafter, in order to hide the evidence, they concealed the body 5 km deep in the forest. Based on their disclosure, the body was recovered, and a case was filed under Sections 302, 201/34 of the IPC against both appellants. The trial court convicted them, leading to the present appeal.
It was contended by the appellants that there weren't any eyewitnesses to the crime, and the case was built on an extra-judicial confession, which was regarded as a weak evidence. Furthermore it was argued, that there wasn't any corroborative evidence to establish their guilt.
The Court noted, “This is a somewhat unique case, in as much that confession leading to recovery of the dead body was not made to the police, but before a Village Panchayat. Confession made to police is not admissible into evidence, and only facts which are deposed to as discovered in consequence of information received, from a person accused of any offence, in the custody of police officer, is admissible under Section 27 of the Evidence Act.”The court further observed that the confession made by the accused before the Panchayat qualifies as an extra-judicial confession, and its credibility is confirmed by the recovery of the dead body from a jungle area.
Considering these factors, the court opined, “extra judicial confession made by the appellants in the present case leading to recovery of the dead body from remote forest area, can be acted upon and made the basis for conviction of the appellants. There is no infirmity in the judgment of conviction and sentence passed and there does not exist any strong reason to differ with the finding of the learned trial Court.”
With this, the court dismissed the criminal appeal.
Case Title: Budhu Nag Chatar V. The State of Jharkhand
LL Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Jha) 155