Extra-Judicial Confession Is A Weak Piece Of Evidence, Independent Corroboration Needed: SC
Extra-Judicial Confession Is a Weak Piece of Evidence, Independent Corroboration Needed: Supreme Court of India
Context:
In criminal trials, confessions made outside the court (extra-judicial confessions) often play a significant role in the prosecution’s case. However, due to their nature, the courts treat such confessions with caution.
Legal Principle:
An extra-judicial confession is a statement made by the accused outside the court, often to police or third parties.
It is not substantive evidence on its own and cannot be the sole basis for conviction.
The Supreme Court of India has repeatedly held that extra-judicial confessions are weak and require independent corroboration by other evidence before they can be acted upon.
This principle safeguards accused persons from wrongful conviction based on unverified or coerced confessions.
Reasoning:
Vulnerability to Coercion or Fabrication:
Extra-judicial confessions may be made under duress, threat, or inducement.
There is no guarantee of the voluntariness or truthfulness of such statements.
No Opportunity for Cross-Examination:
Unlike judicial confession made before a magistrate, extra-judicial confessions are not subject to cross-examination or legal safeguards.
Judicial Caution:
Courts must insist on independent corroborative evidence such as eyewitness testimony, forensic evidence, recovery of stolen goods, etc.
Corroboration must be such that it independently establishes the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt.
Risk of Miscarriage of Justice:
Sole reliance on extra-judicial confession can lead to wrongful conviction.
This principle acts as a check against police excesses and false confessions.
Key Supreme Court Judgments:
1. R.V. Kelkar on the Law of Evidence (Landmark Reference)
Recognizes the principle that extra-judicial confessions need corroboration to be reliable.
2. State of U.P. vs. Deoman Upadhyaya, AIR 1960 SC 1125
The Supreme Court emphasized that an extra-judicial confession cannot be the sole basis of conviction.
It must be corroborated by independent evidence.
3. Nandini Satpathy vs. P.L. Dani, AIR 1978 SC 1025
Highlighted the importance of safeguarding the accused’s rights.
Extra-judicial confessions should be scrutinized with caution.
4. Laxman vs. State of Maharashtra, AIR 1968 SC 1092
The Court held that corroboration is necessary to support an extra-judicial confession.
5. Dinesh Yadav vs. State of Bihar, (2013) 2 SCC 420
Affirmed that extra-judicial confession is weak evidence.
Courts should not convict solely on such confessions without corroboration.
6. K.C. Varghese vs. Inspector of Police, AIR 1983 SC 440
Court ruled that corroborative evidence must be independent and must strengthen the prosecution’s case.
Practical Implications:
Police and prosecution must gather independent, corroborative evidence to support any extra-judicial confession.
Courts will examine the circumstances under which the confession was made to detect any coercion or inducement.
Defense counsel can challenge extra-judicial confessions as unreliable.
The principle reinforces the presumption of innocence until proven guilty.
Summary Table:
| Aspect | Legal Position |
|---|---|
| Nature of Extra-Judicial Confession | Statement made outside court, often informal or to police |
| Evidentiary Value | Weak piece of evidence; not substantive on its own |
| Requirement | Needs independent and reliable corroboration |
| Risk Factors | Possible coercion, fabrication, lack of safeguards |
| Judicial Approach | Exercise caution; do not convict solely on such confession |
| Examples of Corroboration | Eyewitness accounts, forensic evidence, recovery of stolen property |
Conclusion:
The Supreme Court of India has firmly established that extra-judicial confessions are inherently weak and must be independently corroborated before they can be used to convict an accused. This safeguard prevents misuse of confessions obtained under duress or false statements, protecting the fundamental right to a fair trial.
RELATED Blog
