Extra Judicial Confession To A Stranger Improbable: Bombay HC
Extra Judicial Confession to a Stranger Improbable: Bombay High Court
What is an Extra Judicial Confession?
An extra judicial confession is a statement made voluntarily by the accused outside the court or police custody, admitting guilt.
It is often used as evidence in criminal trials.
The Principle
The Bombay High Court has often observed that:
Confession made to a complete stranger is improbable and suspicious.
Usually, an accused confesses to someone known or trusted, such as a close friend, relative, or police officer.
Confession to a total stranger is viewed with caution by courts because it lacks credibility.
Why is Confession to a Stranger Viewed with Skepticism?
Human Nature and Practicality
It is unnatural for a person to confess a serious crime to a stranger without any compelling reason.
There is a risk that such a confession may be fabricated or concocted.
Reliability and Corroboration
Since extra judicial confession is a weak form of evidence (as it is hearsay), courts insist on corroboration.
Confession to a stranger is less trustworthy unless supported by other reliable evidence.
Possibility of Motive or Manipulation
A stranger may have an ulterior motive or may be used to extract a false confession.
Bombay High Court’s Observations
Key Points:
The Court noted that if the person to whom the confession was made is a complete stranger, the probability of truthfulness is low.
The court advised to scrutinize such confessions carefully, considering the nature of relationship and circumstances.
Where confession is made to strangers, corroborative evidence becomes essential.
Important Case Laws
1. State of Maharashtra v. Balvant Singh, AIR 1968 Bom 219
The Bombay HC observed that an extra judicial confession to a stranger is improbable.
It stressed the importance of corroborative evidence before acting on such confession.
The court did not place much reliance on confession made to an unknown person.
2. Ramrao Narayan Rathod v. State of Maharashtra, AIR 1969 Bom 233
It was held that extra judicial confession made to a stranger is generally not trustworthy.
The court must examine the circumstances under which such confession was made.
3. Vasudeo Gopal Vichare v. State of Maharashtra, 1976 CriLJ 196 Bom
Court emphasized the improbability of confession to a stranger and required strong corroboration for conviction.
Supporting Supreme Court Position
While these are Bombay HC cases, the Supreme Court has also acknowledged the general caution required for extra judicial confessions:
1. Tukaram S. Dighole v. State of Maharashtra, (2010) 3 SCC 170
The Supreme Court held that extra judicial confession is not substantive evidence by itself.
It must be voluntary and preferably corroborated.
Confession to a stranger requires even more scrutiny.
2. Raghunath Rai Bareja v. State (Delhi Administration), AIR 1952 SC 157
Court reiterated that confession to an unknown person or stranger is inherently improbable and demands corroboration.
Summary Table
| Aspect | Explanation |
|---|---|
| Extra Judicial Confession | Statement outside court or police admitting guilt |
| Confession to Stranger | Viewed with suspicion and improbability by Bombay HC |
| Reason for Skepticism | Human nature, lack of trust, potential fabrication, ulterior motives |
| Requirement | Careful scrutiny and strong corroboration required |
| Key Cases | Balvant Singh, Ramrao Narayan Rathod, Vasudeo Gopal Vichare (Bombay HC) |
| Supreme Court View | Extra judicial confession not substantive alone; confession to stranger is doubtful |
Practical Implication
In criminal trials, when the prosecution relies on extra judicial confession made to a stranger, courts tend to be cautious.
Unless the confession is supported by other convincing evidence, it is unlikely to lead to conviction.
This principle protects against wrongful convictions based on false or fabricated confessions.
RELATED Blog
0 comments