Extra-Judicial Confession Is A Weak Piece Of Evidence, Independent Corroboration Needed: Supreme Court

A Bench of Justices BR Gavai and Sanjay Karol said that Courts would generally look for an independent reliable corroboration before placing any reliance upon an extra-judicial confession.

“It is a settled principle of law that extra-judicial confession is a weak piece of evidence. It has been held that where an extra-judicial confession is surrounded by suspicious circumstances, its credibility becomes doubtful and it loses its importance. It has further been held that it is well-settled that it is a rule of caution where the court would generally look for an independent reliable corroboration before placing any reliance upon such extra-judicial confession. It has been held that there is no doubt that conviction can be based on extra-judicial confession, but in the very nature of things, it is a weak piece of evidence.”

The Top Court’s observations came in an appeal plea challenging the conviction of one Nikhil Chandra Mondal in a murder case by the Calcutta High Court. The High Court had reversed the Trial Court’s judgement acquitting Mondal.

Advocate Rukhsana Choudhury appearing for the appellant argued that the High Court has grossly erred in reversing the well-reasoned judgment and order of acquittal passed by the trial court.

Advocate Astha Sharma for the State submitted that the High Court had rightly found that the extra-judicial confession made before three prosecution witnesses is trustworthy, reliable and cogent.

The Court, firstly, in its judgement pointed out that the law with regard to conviction in the case of circumstance evidence was well crystallised in Sharad Birdhichand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra.

The circumstances, the Court opined, should be of a conclusive nature and tendency and they should exclude every possible hypothesis except the one sought to be proved. There must be a chain of evidence so complete so as not to leave any reasonable ground for the conclusion consistent with the innocence of the accused and must show that in all human probability the act must have been done by the accused, the Bench added.

“It can thus be seen that this Court has held that the circumstances from which the conclusion of guilt is to be drawn should be fully established. It has been held that the circumstances concerned “must or should” and not “may be” established. It has been held that there is not only a grammatical but a legal distinction between “may be proved” and “must be or should be proved”. It has been held that the facts so established should be consistent only with the hypothesis of the guilt of the accused, that is to say, they should not be explainable on any other hypothesis except that the accused is guilty.”

Further, the Court reiterated a settled principle of law which is that however strong a suspicion may be, it cannot take place of a proof beyond reasonable doubt.

The Court also went through how the Trial Court proceeded with the case, the latter had observed that the prosecution’s case is entirely based on extra-judicial confession and the prosecution sought the conviction of the accused on that extrajudicial confession. Due to this, the evidence of the witnesses before whom the alleged confessional statement was made, requires a greater scrutiny to pass the test of credibility.

The trial court had found that the evidence of PWs 10 to 12 were contradictory to each other and also were found to be not trustworthy. Unless this finding is found perverse, an interference is not warranted and not be justified, the Apex Court observed.

The Bench also went through the basis on which the High Court convicted the appellant.

The High Court had relied on the recovery of the blood-stained clothes and the weapon which is alleged to have been used by the appellant in commission of the crime.

The Top Court noted that the trial court had disbelieved the recovery of clothes and weapon on two grounds: Firstly, that there was no memorandum statement of the accused as required under Section 27 of the Evidence Act, 1872 and secondly, the recovery of the knife was from an open place accessible to one and all.

“We find that the approach adopted by the trial court was in accordance with law. However, this circumstance which, in our view, could not have been used, has been employed by the High Court to seek corroboration to the extra-judicial confession”, the Supreme Court ruled.

Before parting with the judgement, the Court also relied on Rajesh Prasad v. State of Bihar 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 33 which discussed the scope of interference in a case of acquittal.

“It held that there is double presumption in favour of the accused. Firstly, the presumption of innocence that is available to him under the fundamental principle of criminal jurisprudence that every person shall be presumed to be innocent unless he is proved guilty by a competent court of law. Secondly, the accused having secured his acquittal, the presumption of his innocence is further reinforced, reaffirmed and strengthened by the court. It has been further held that if two reasonable conclusions are possible on the basis of the evidence on record, the Appellate Court should not disturb the finding of acquittal recorded by the trial court.”

While setting aside the High Court’s judgement, the Top Court held that the former had grossly erred in interfering with the Trial Court’s well-reasoned judgment of acquittal.

Case Title: Nikhil Chandra Mondal Vs State Of West Bengal | Criminal Appeal No. 2269 Of 2010

Citation : 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 171

For Appellant(s) Ms. Rukhsana Choudhury, AOR;

For Respondent(s) Ms. Astha Sharma, AOR Mr. Srisatya Mohanty,Adv. Mr. Sanjeev Kuashik,Adv. Ms. Mantika Haryani,Adv. Mr. Shreyas Awasthi,Adv. Mr. Himanshu Chakravarty,Adv. Mr. Devvrat Singh,Adv. Ms. Muskan Surana,Adv. Mr. Bhanu Mishra,Adv.

Indian Evidence Act 1872 - Extra-judicial confession - It is a settled principle of law that extra-judicial confession is a weak piece of evidence. It has been held that where an extra-judicial confession is surrounded by suspicious circumstances, its credibility becomes doubtful and it loses its importance. It has further been held that it is well-settled that it is a rule of caution where the court would generally look for an independent reliable corroboration before placing any reliance upon such extra-judicial confession. It has been held that there is no doubt that conviction can be based on extra-judicial confession, but in the very nature of things, it is a weak piece of evidence-Referred to Sahadevan and Another v. State of Tamil Nadu (2012) 6 SCC 403- Para 15

Indian Evidence Act 1872- Circumstantial evidence - The law with regard to conviction in the case of circumstance evidence - Explained- Referred to Sharad Birdhichand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra (1984) 4 SCC 116 - Para 8 to 10

Indian Evidence Act 1872-It is a settled principle of law that however strong a suspicion may be, it cannot take place of a proof beyond reasonable doubt - Para 11

Code of Criminal Procedure 1973 - Section 378 - Appeal against acquittal-  Scope of interference - Unless such a finding is found to be perverse or illegal/impossible, it is not permissible for the appellate Court to interfere with the same - Referred to Rajesh Prasad vs State of Bihar 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 33- Para 19