Extra Judicial Confession Made By Co-Accused Could Be Admitted In Evidence Only For Corroboration: Supreme Court

The Supreme Court observed that extra judicial confession made by the co-accused could be admitted in evidence only as a corroborative piece of evidence.

In absence of any substantive evidence against the accused, the extra judicial confession allegedly made by the co-accused loses its significance and there cannot be any conviction based on such extra judicial confession of the co-accused, the bench comprising Justices  DY Chandrachud and Bela M. Trivedi said.

In this case, four accused i.e., Bhagirathi, Chandrapal, Mangal Singh and Videshi, were convicted by the Trial Court under section 302 and Section 201 read with section 34 of IPC. Allowing the appeal filed by three of them viz Bhagirathi , Mangal Singh and Videshi, the Chhattisgarh High Court set aside their conviction and sentence imposed on them under section 302 read with section 34 of IPC, but confirmed their conviction for the offence under section 201 read with section 34 of IPC. The High Court dismissed the appeal filed by Chandrapal and therefore he approached the Apex Court.

In appeal, it was contended that there were major contradictions in the evidence of prosecution witnesses as regards the alleged extra judicial confession made by the accused Videshi before them and thus his conviction cannot be based on the extra judicial confession made by the co-accused, which is of a very weak kind of evidence. In this regard, the State contended that there was other corroborative evidence adduced by the prosecution which conclusively proved the entire chain of circumstances leading to the guilt of the appellant.

The court noted that as per Section 30 of the Evidence Act, when more persons than one are being tried jointly for the same offence, and a confession made by one of such persons affecting himself and some other of such persons is proved, the court may take into consideration such confession as against such other person as well as against the person who makes such confession.

The court observed that an extra judicial confession attains greater credibility and evidentiary value if it is supported by chain of cogent circumstances and is further corroborated by other prosecution evidence. 

"However, this court has consistently held that an extra judicial confession is a weak kind of evidence and unless it inspires confidence or is fully corroborated by some other evidence of clinching nature, ordinarily conviction for the offence of murder should not be made only on the evidence of extra judicial confession. As held in case of State of M.P. Through CBI & Ors. Vs. Paltan Mallah & Ors. , the extra judicial confession made by the co-accused could be admitted in evidence only as a corroborative piece of evidence. In absence of any substantive evidence against the accused, the extra judicial confession allegedly made by the co-accused loses its significance and there cannot be any conviction based on such extra judicial confession of the co-accused.", the court added.

The court opined that if a weak piece of evidence of the co-accused Videshi was not duly proved or found trustworthy for holding the other co-accused guilty of committing murder of the deceased Brinda and Kanhaiya, the High Court could not have used the said evidence against the present appellant for the purpose of holding him guilty for the alleged offence.

On the contention regarding 'Last seen theory', the bench observed that If the evidence of prosecution falls short of proof of homicidal death of the deceased, and if the possibility of suicidal death could not be ruled out, the appellant accused could not have been convicted merely on the basis of the theory of "Last seen together".

The court therefore allowed the appeal and acquitted the accused.

Case details

Chandrapal vs State of Chhattisgarh | 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 529 | CrA 378 OF 2015 | 27 May 2022

Coram: Justices DY Chandrachud and Bela M. Trivedi

Headnotes

Indian Evidence Act, 1872 ; Section 30 - Extra judicial confession is a weak kind of evidence and unless it inspires confidence or is fully corroborated by some other evidence of clinching nature, ordinarily conviction for the offence of murder should not be made only on the evidence of extra judicial confession - The extra judicial confession made by the co-accused could be admitted in evidence only as a corroborative piece of evidence. In absence of any substantive evidence against the accused, the extra judicial confession allegedly made by the co-accused loses its significance and there cannot be any conviction based on such extra judicial confession of the co-accused. (Para 11-12)

Criminal Trial - Last Seen Together - In absence of any other links in the chain of circumstantial evidence, the accused cannot be convicted solely on the basis of "Last seen together", even if version of the prosecution witness in this regard is believed. [Referred to Bodhraj & Ors. Vs. State of Jammu and Kashmir (2002) 8 SCC 45  ; Jaswant Gir Vs. State of Punjab (2005) 12 SCC 438 ; Arjun Marik & Ors. Vs. State of Bihar 1994 Supp (2) SCC 372. (Para 14-17)

Indian Penal Code, 1860 ; Section 302 - In order to convict an accused under Section 302, the court is required to first see as to whether the prosecution has proved the factum of homicidal death. (Para 8)

Criminal Trial - Circumstantial Evidence - The circumstances concerned "must or should be" established and not "may be" established - The accused "must be" and not merely "may be" guilty before a court can convict him. The conclusions of guilt arrived at must be sure conclusions and must not be based on vague conjectures. The entire chain of circumstances on which the conclusion of guilt is to be drawn, should be fully established and should not leave any reasonable ground for the conclusion consistent with the innocence of the accused - Referred to Shivaji Sahabrao Bobade & Anr. Vs. State of Maharashtra (1973) 2 SCC 793 and Sharad Birdhichand Sarda Vs. State of Maharashtra (1984) 4 SCC 116. (Para 7)

Click Here To Read/Download Judgment