Extra-Judicial Confession Obtained Through Coercion Inadmissible As Evidence: Jharkhand HC Acquits Man In 15 Yrs Old Murder & Unnatural Offence Case

The Jharkhand High Court has acquitted a man booked in 2009 for committing unnatural sex and murder of a 10 years old boy, while ruling that his extra-judicial confession obtained through coercion is inadmissible as evidence.

The Division Bench of Justices Subhash Chand and Ananda Sen noted, “The extra judicial confession being not voluntary and was the result of coercion cannot be admissible in evidence. The extra judicial confession is a weak kind of evidence, unless and until, the same inspires the confidence of the Court to believe the same to be trustworthy, the same cannot be relied upon.”

The case originated from a complaint alleging that on the night of September 28, 2009, Upendra Mehta took his 10-year-old cousin under the pretext of watching television and the next morning, the cousin's dead body was discovered in a bush, with a pair of spectacles nearby, identified by villagers as belonging to Upendra Mehta. Under pressure from the villagers, Upendra Mehta confessed to having committed carnal intercourse and throttling the child to death.

The Court took note of the 'link evidence' in the chain of circumstances, specifically the recovery of spectacles by villagers near the deceased's body, which were identified as belonging to the appellant-convict by prosecution witnesses examined before the Trial Court.

The Court stated, “The recovered spectacle being not sealed, the seizure memo of the same is also becomes doubtful. All these witnesses have stated that they have seen the appellant-convict, wearing the spectacle; but in regard to the frame and colour of the spectacle, there is discrepancy in the statement of the witnesses and, as such, the identity of the spectacle is not found proved.”

Based on the testimony of these witnesses, the Court observed that the extra-judicial confession allegedly made by the appellant-convict before these prosecution witnesses and villagers was not voluntary.

“The extra judicial confession was outcome of coercion as the appellant-convict was frightened and threatened and was also tied by the villagers. Moreover, this extra judicial confession made by the appellant-convict was not before any such person, who was any authority or was having intimacy with the appellant-convict,” the Court held.

Consequently, the Court opined, “the chain of circumstantial evidence is not found complete. The chain breaks in regard to the evidence of the identity of spectacle, which is alleged to have been recovered near the dead body of deceased and is alleged to be of appellant-convict. Further, it breaks on the extra judicial confession of the deceased, which was the result of coercion was not voluntarily and the same is not admissible. Again, the chain of circumstantial evidence breaks in regard to the last seen of deceased by the witnesses and the time of death.”

Therefore, the Court held that, based on the circumstantial evidence, “it is not proved that it was the appellant-convict, who was the perpetrator of the commission of alleged offence, as such, the same is not found beyond reasonable doubt.”

As a result, the Court allowed the Criminal Appeal, setting aside the impugned judgment of conviction and the order of sentence passed by the Trial Court. The appellant was acquitted of the charges and directed to be released forthwith, provided he was not wanted in any other case.

Case Title: Upendra Mahto @ Upendra Mehta vs The State of Jharkhand

LL Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Jha) 94

Click Here To Read/Download Order