Is It Safe To Rely Exclusively On Extra Judicial Confession?
Is It Safe to Rely Exclusively on Extra-Judicial Confession?
What is Extra-Judicial Confession?
An extra-judicial confession is a statement made voluntarily by an accused person outside the court, admitting guilt or involvement in a crime. It differs from a judicial confession, which is made in court during trial proceedings.
Legal Position on Extra-Judicial Confession
Admissibility: Extra-judicial confessions are generally admissible as evidence under Indian law if they are voluntarily made.
Reliability: However, courts exercise caution in relying solely on such confessions because they are not made under oath or in the presence of the court.
Corroboration: Extra-judicial confessions need to be corroborated by other evidence to form a basis for conviction.
Why Caution is Required?
Possibility of Coercion or Inducement
Since the confession is not made before the court, it may be the result of coercion, threat, or promise, undermining its credibility.
Memory and Accuracy Issues
Human memory can be fallible, and details of the confession may be inaccurately recalled by witnesses.
Lack of Formal Safeguards
Judicial confession happens in a controlled environment ensuring voluntariness, but extra-judicial confession lacks these procedural safeguards.
Relevant Legal Provisions
Section 24 of Indian Evidence Act: Confession caused by inducement, threat, or promise is irrelevant in criminal proceedings.
Section 25 of Indian Evidence Act: Confession made to police is generally inadmissible.
Section 26 of Indian Evidence Act: Confession made to police officer during custody is inadmissible unless it leads to discovery.
Section 27 of Indian Evidence Act: Discovery confession is admissible to the extent it leads to discovery.
Important Case Laws
1. State of Uttar Pradesh v. Rajesh Gautam, (2003) 5 SCC 44
The Supreme Court held that a conviction cannot be based solely on extra-judicial confession unless it is found to be reliable and is corroborated by other evidence.
2. Karnail Singh v. State of Punjab, AIR 1963 SC 1298
The Court emphasized that extra-judicial confessions are weak in nature and must be tested by corroboration before acting upon them.
3. Ramesh Chander v. State of Haryana, AIR 1979 SC 1089
Extra-judicial confession should be scrutinized with caution, and courts should not convict solely based on such confession.
4. State of Maharashtra v. Dr. Praful B. Desai, (2003) 4 SCC 601
The Supreme Court reiterated that the best evidence against the accused is the evidence of witnesses and direct evidence, and extra-judicial confession should be supplemented by such evidence.
5. Abdul Wahab v. State of Madhya Pradesh, (1997) 9 SCC 682
The Court stated that conviction solely on extra-judicial confession is unsafe unless corroborated by other evidence.
Summary
Extra-judicial confession is admissible but is not sufficient alone for conviction.
Courts treat such confessions with great caution.
Corroboration with independent evidence (witness testimony, material evidence) is essential.
If the confession is obtained by coercion, threat, or inducement, it is inadmissible.
Conviction solely based on extra-judicial confession is generally considered unsafe.
Practical Implications
Police and prosecution should seek to support confessions with tangible evidence.
Defense can challenge confession’s voluntariness and demand corroboration.
Courts ensure a fair trial by balancing confession evidence with other proofs.
RELATED Blog
0 comments