The Supreme Court in State of Rajasthan v. Kistoora Ram observed that extra judicial confession was a weak piece of evidence and unless there was some corroboration, the conviction solely on the basis of extra judicial confession could not be sustained.
Brief facts of the matter are that the respondent–accused was charged with an offence punishable under Sections 302 and 201 of the IPC. It is alleged that the accused had killed his wife with a lathi, dragged her 100 feet away from the house and set her on fire in order to destroy the evidence. The Trial Court convicted him and sentenced him to suffer life imprisonment with a fine of Rs.100/-. The matter went into appeal and the High Court, vide impugned judgment, allowed the appeal thereby reversing the order of conviction and acquitting the accused for the offences charged. Thus, this appeal.
While perusing the impugned judgment, the Court observed that “The High Court, relying on the judgment of this Court in the case of State of Punjab v. Bhajan Singh and Others , so also in the case of Gopal Sah v. State of Bihar has held that extrajudicial confession was a weak piece of evidence and unless there was some corroboration, the conviction solely on the basis of extrajudicial confession could not be sustained. The view taken by the High Court cannot be said to be either impossible or perverse meriting our interference”
The Court further observed that “The scope of interference in an appeal against acquittal is very limited. Unless it is found that the view taken by the Court is impossible or perverse, it is not permissible to interfere with the finding of acquittal. Equally, if two views are possible, it is not permissible to set aside an order of acquittal, merely because the Appellate Court finds the way of conviction to be more probable. The interference would be warranted only if the view taken is not possible at all.”