Extra-Judicial Confession Weak Piece Of Evidence, Can Be Relied On If Proven To Be Voluntary, Truthful And Free Of Inducement: Supreme Court

The Supreme Court recently held that while extra-judicial confessions are typically considered weak pieces of evidence, they can still serve as grounds for conviction if proven to be voluntary, truthful, and free of inducement. The court must be convinced of the reliability of the confession, and this evaluation takes into account the surrounding circumstances.

The Supreme Court relied on Pawan Kumar Chaurasia v State of Bihar which had observed “Generally, it is a weak piece of evidence. However, a conviction can be sustained on the basis of extrajudicial confession provided that the confession is proved to be voluntary and truthful. It should be free of any inducement. The evidentiary value of such confession also depends on the person to whom it is made. Going by the natural course of human conduct, normally, a person would confide about a crime committed by him only with such a person in whom he has implicit faith.”

The Supreme Court bench comprising Justices Abhay S. Oka and Justice Sanjay Karol was hearing an appeal from Madras HC which dismissed his appeal challenging the life imprisonment sentence awarded to him for murdering his wife.

According to the prosecution's account, the appellant held suspicions of an illicit relationship between Shanthi and a man named Peethambaram. The appellant reportedly attacked Shanthi with a stick, causing fatal injuries that ultimately led to her demise. The prosecution relied upon the extra­judicial confession made by the appellant before PW­1 Ganesan Perumal in the presence of PW­2 Tyagarajan Kannan.

The court noted that the incident in question dates back to May 29, 2006, while the supposed confession occurred on August 10, 2006.

What added to the skepticism of the court relating to the credibility of the confession was the appellant's decision to approach the Village Administrative Officer, who was a complete stranger to him, more than two months after the incident allegedly took place.

The court opined that it is highly unusual for an accused individual to choose to confide in someone with whom they lack any pre-existing relationship, particularly when faced with serious allegations.

The court also closely examined the discrepancies in evidence. The lack of a verified thumb impression, the delay in reporting to the police, and the potential presence of other individuals during the alleged confession collectively raised doubts about the reliability of the prosecution's narrative.

The second prosecution witness is concerned who claimed to have been present when the appellant made the confession, had prior knowledge of the appellant before the incident occurred. However, the court found it strange that despite this acquaintance, the appellant had not shared any confession with him

The court observed that “Extra­judicial confession is always a weak piece of evidence and in this case, for the reasons which we have recorded earlier, there is serious doubt about the genuineness of the prosecution case regarding the extra­judicial confession. Therefore, the prosecution case about the extrajudicial confession does not deserve acceptance.”

As far as the recovery of the dead body was concerned the court observed that “It is not the case of the prosecution that the place where the dead body was buried was accessible and known only to the appellant. This also raises serious doubt about the theory of the prosecution about the discovery of the body at the instance of the appellant.”

The court also noted glaring inconsistencies in evidence regarding the recovery of the alleged instrument of the offense. Moreover, the witnesses who were examined to prove the last-seen theory were declared hostile.

Therefore, The court held that “it is not possible to accept the case of the prosecution which is entirely based on the extra­judicial confession made by the appellant. There was no legal evidence on record to convict the appellant. In any case, the guilt of the appellant has not been proved beyond a reasonable doubt.”

The Court allowed the appeal and acquitted the appellant.

Case title: Moorthy v. State of TN

Citation : 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 679

Click Here To Read/Download Judgment