EXTRA - JUDICIAL CONFESSION

   EXTRA – JUDICIAL CONFESSION:

An extra judicial confession is a weak peace of evidence, normally by itself it can be corroborative only. 

Extra-judicial confession cannot be relied upon when confession was made to a person having no intimacy with the accused and no reason was given for making such confession and witness cannot recollect the place where confession was made. [Niranjanlal Vs. Haryana] -, [Kashmira Singh Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh] -, [N.Banu Vs. State of Tamil Nadu] –. 

  (a) [Gour Mani Roy vs. State of Tripura], (Para 47): Extra-Judicial Confession where the accused was in the custody Police Officer is inadmissible. 

  (b) Extra-judicial Confession if inspires trustfully can form basis for conviction. [Narayan Singh Vs State of Rajasthan] -. 

  (c) In [Gura Singh v. State of Rajasthan] –. It is settled that extra-judicial confession can be relied upon to convict the accused. 

  (d) [Sahadevan & Anr. V. State of Tamil Nadu] (Paras. 21 & 22). Extra-judicial Confession can form the basis for conviction, provided it inspires the confidence of the Court and corroborated with the other prosecution. 

  (e) If the Extra-judicial Confession suffers from 

1. Material Deficiencies 

2. Inherent improbabilities 

And does not appear to be confident the Extra-judicial Confession must be out of consideration. 

  (f) [Balwinder Singh v. State of Punjab] – it has been held that extra judicial Confession requires great deal of care and caution before acceptance. There should be no suspicious circumstances surrounding it. In [Pakiri samy v. state of Tamil Nadu] and in [Kavita v. State of Tamil Nadu] the same view has been reiterated. 

  (g) [Sahadevan v. State of Tamil Nadu] - Extra judicial Confession is very weak piece of evidence, before acting upon the same court must ensure that the same inspires confidence and it is corroborated by other evidence. 

  (h) [Pargan Singh V. State of Punjab] – (Para. 24) – since the extra judicial confession made before PW1 was corroborated the evidence of PW’s 2 & 3 and there was no suspicious circumstances projected the same was acted upon. 

  (i) [Kadamanian@ Manikandan V. State] – extra judicial Confession of accused to the VAO found reliable and conviction was confirmed. (Para 11 to 20). 

Since nose pin was recovered at the instance of the appellant from a remote place under the electric transformer, no one but the appellant aware of the place – it was also identified by the witnesses. Hence, conviction was confirmed. 

  (j) [Kala @ Chandrakala v. State] – extra judicial confession – prima-facie unusual and doubtful – no corroboration – hence rejected. Extra judicial Confession is very weak piece of evidence before acting upon the same court must ensure the same inspires confidence and it is corroborated by other evidence. 

Six Principles of Extra-judicial Confession: 

i (i) The Extra-judicial Confession is a weak evidence by itself. It has to be examined by the court with greater care and caution. 

ii (ii) It should be made voluntarily and should be trustful. 

iii (iii) It should inspire confidence. 

iv (iv) Extra-judicial Confession attains greater credibility and evidentiary value, if it is supported by a chain of cogent circumstances and is further corroborated by other prosecution evidences. 

i (v) In order to record conviction on the basis of an Extra-judicial Confession, it should not suffer from any material discrepancies and inherent improbabilities. 

ii (vi) Such statement essentially has to be provided like any other fact and in accordance with law. 

Rule 72 0f Criminal Rules of practice was framed by the Highcourt Madras. 

According to Rule 72, after the commencement of police investigation the Village Munsifs are absolutely prohibited from recording confession statement or any statement from an accused. 

Placing reliance on the above Rule, number of cases have been ended in acquittal for example [Raja & Ors. V. State].; 51[Muthan @ nabiyan v. State] 

[Sivakumar Vs state] - The Hon’ble Supreme Court was pleased to held that the post of village Munsif had been abolished long back and the post of village Munsif and village Administrative Officer are not one and the same, so the confession recorded by the Village Administrative Officer is admissible in evidence and the same is known as extra judicial confession. 

VI. CONFESSION BEFORE POLICE OFFICER: 

The word ‘Police Officer’ has not been defined – but it is settled that the expression should not be confined to police officers, Section 1 of the Police Act. It should be given a liberal construction. Thus, a Gram Rakshi functioning under Orissa Gram Rakshi Act is a police officer and confession made to him is not admissible. 

1) In 53[Rajkumar Kanwal Vs. Union of India] –: 

The important attribute of police power is not only the power to investigate into the commission of cognizable offence, but also power to prosecute the offender by filing a report u/s. 173 Cr.P.C., 

2) Retired Police Officer is not police officer, [Madhan Vs State] -. 

3) [Madan Vs. State of Orissa] (Para 19) That the statement of suspect recorded under Section 50 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act by an Enforcement officer it admits the commission of an offence, is admissible as a piece of confession during trial, since officers of the enforcement Directorate are not police officers within the meaning of section 25 of Evidence Act. [Illiyas V. Collector of Customs], Madras 

4) For the purpose of Sections. 24 & 25 of Indian Evidence Act, the officers from customs and central excise are not equivalent or similar to those of police officers. [State of Punjab V. Barkath Ram] - 

5) An Assistant Inspector of Customs is not a police officer 1946 MWN 766. Statements made to a Customs Officer is an enquiry under Section 104 or 108 of Customs Act are not some as investigation by Police Officer and are admissible in evidence. 1967 MLJ Crl. 381 FB Mad. 

6) Statement made to Forest Range Officer is admissible in evidence – 1957 IIMLJ624                                                              APPRECIATION OF CONFESSION BY CRIMINAL COURT: 

[Mukesh Vs State (NCT of Delhi)] 

Recovery and Seizure – Section 27 of Indian Evidence Act – Requirement of independent witness not necessary – as per evidence of PW80 no independent witness came forward as seizure witness. 

Before acting upon a confession statement, the confession has to be affirmatively proved to be free and voluntary. Before recording conviction on the basis of confession, it has to be shown that the confession was truthful and voluntary. 

[Sahib singh v. state of Haryana] 

[Nazeer khan and ors. Vs. Delhi] 

The confession should be a voluntary one, that means not caused by any inducement, threat or promise. Whether a confession is a voluntary or not is essentially a question of fact. [Shankar & ors. V. state of Tamilnadu]. 

Confession in common means and includes acknowledgment of Guilt its evidentiary value and acceptability shall have to be assessed by the court having due regard to the credibility of the witnesses. 

The evidence of witnesses before whom the alleged confession has been made has to be appreciated by the court of law by giving due regard to the attending circumstances of the case. If the confession is voluntary and free from doubts, the same can be foundation for conviction. [State of Punjab v. Gurdeep Singh]