Extra-Judicial Confession Must Be Corroborated By Other Credible Evidence For Conviction: Gauhati High Court

The observation was made while setting aside the conviction and life sentenced of applicant under section 302 of IPC by the trial court.

The bench of Justices Suman Shyam and Parthiv Jyoti Saikia observed that the trial court has erred in accepting the uncorroborated extra judicial confession allegedly made by the accused to witness Chandan Tanti.

During the trial, it was argued by the prosecution that Chandan in his statement under section 164 of CrPC has stated that the appellant confessed in front of a lot of people that he had killed the deceased.

However, the High Court observed that Chandan did not reproduce the exact words used by the appellant and his evidence remained uncorroborated by any of the prosecution witnesses.

"Extra-judicial confess is always a weak piece of evidence. There is neither any rule of law nor of prudence that evidence furnished by extrajudicial confession cannot be relied upon unless corroborated by some other credible evidence. However, for acceptance of extra judicial confession, it must be established by cogent evidence, as to what were the exact words used by the accused. Such a confession may be used only as a corroborative piece of evidence."

The court relied upon the Arul Raja v. State of Tamil Nadu, (2010) 8 SCC 233 in which the Supreme Court has held that before the court proceeds to act on the basis of an extra-judicial confession, the circumstances under which it is made, the manner in which it is made and the persons to whom it is made must be considered along with the two rules of caution: first, whether the evidence of confession is reliable and second, whether it finds corroboration.

The court further observed that the appellant allegedly confessed about his guilt to Tanti when he was in the company of some other persons. Those persons were not examined by the prosecution.

“Therefore, the prosecution has failed to prove the charge brought against the appellant beyond all reasonable doubt. There is a thick cloud of doubt about the veracity of the prosecution case against the appellant”, the court ruled.

In conclusion, the court acquitted the appellant giving him the benefit of doubt.

Case Title: Radhanath Tanti v. The State of Assam

Coram: Justice Suman Shyam and Justice Parthiv Jyoti Saikia

Advocates: Mr. M. Dutta for Applicant

Mr. B. Bhuyan, the APP for the state and Mr. J. Das for Respondent

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Gau) 10

Click Here To Read/Download Judgment