Recording and Admissibility of Extra-Judicial Confessions in Indian Law

The Evidentiary Conundrum of Extra-Judicial Confessions in Indian Criminal Law: Recording, Reliability, and Judicial Scrutiny

Introduction

An extra-judicial confession is an admission of guilt made by an accused person outside the formal precincts of a courtroom, typically to a private individual or, in certain contexts, to an official not empowered to record confessions under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC).[20] Unlike judicial confessions, which are recorded under specific statutory safeguards designed to ensure voluntariness and authenticity,[13, 14, 15] extra-judicial confessions are fraught with inherent risks of misreporting, coercion, or fabrication. Consequently, Indian jurisprudence has consistently approached such confessions with a high degree of caution, subjecting them to rigorous scrutiny. This article aims to analyze the legal principles governing the recording, admissibility, and evidentiary value of extra-judicial confessions under Indian law, drawing extensively from statutory provisions and judicial pronouncements.

Legal Framework Governing Confessions in India

The admissibility of confessions in India is primarily governed by the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. Sections 24 to 30 of the Act delineate the circumstances under which confessions are relevant or irrelevant.

  • Section 24 renders a confession irrelevant if it appears to the court to have been caused by any inducement, threat, or promise, having reference to the charge against the accused person, proceeding from a person in authority and sufficient, in the opinion of the court, to give the accused person grounds, which would appear to him reasonable, for supposing that by making it he would gain any advantage or avoid any evil of a temporal nature in reference to the proceedings against him.[20]
  • Section 25 categorically bars the proof of any confession made to a police officer.[20]
  • Section 26 extends this bar to confessions made by any person whilst he is in the custody of a police officer, unless it is made in the immediate presence of a Magistrate.[20]
  • Section 27 provides an exception, allowing proof of so much of any information received from an accused in police custody as distinctly relates to a fact thereby discovered.
  • Section 30 deals with the consideration of a proved confession affecting the person making it and others jointly under trial for the same offence.[8, 22]

While these sections primarily address the exclusionary rules, extra-judicial confessions, if not hit by these prohibitions (e.g., made to a private person voluntarily), are generally admissible under Section 21 of the Evidence Act as admissions. However, their evidentiary weight is a distinct matter, determined by judicial evaluation.

Nature and Evidentiary Value of Extra-Judicial Confessions

Inherent Weakness and the Imperative of Caution

The Supreme Court of India and various High Courts have consistently held that an extra-judicial confession is, by its very nature, a weak piece of evidence.[3, 6, 11, 12, 16, 17, 18, 22] In Balwinder Singh v. State Of Punjab (1995), the Supreme Court observed that an extra-judicial confession requires appreciation with a great deal of care and caution, and where it is surrounded by suspicious circumstances, its credibility becomes doubtful and it loses its importance.[3, 16, 18] This cautious approach stems from the potential for misunderstanding, misreporting, or even concoction by the witness deposing to the confession, as well as the absence of procedural safeguards that accompany judicial confessions.[13] The court in YUVARAJ v. STATE reiterated this, starting with the presumption that an extra-judicial confession is a weak piece of evidence.[11]

The Twin Pillars: Voluntariness and Truthfulness

For an extra-judicial confession to be considered reliable, it must satisfy two fundamental tests: it must be voluntary, and it must be truthful.[2, 5, 7, 12, 17, 18, 20]

Voluntariness: The confession must not be the result of any inducement, threat, or promise, as stipulated in Section 24 of the Evidence Act. The court must be satisfied that the accused made the statement of his own free will. In Shankaria v. State Of Rajasthan, while dealing primarily with a judicial confession, the Supreme Court emphasized the need to ensure freedom from police influence and an adequate reflection period, principles that resonate with the assessment of voluntariness for any confession.[2] The court in Gura Singh v. State Of Rajasthan examined whether the extrajudicial confession was made voluntarily, without coercion, inducement, or undue influence.[7]

Truthfulness: Even if voluntary, the confession must also be true. The court assesses truthfulness by examining the inherent probability of the statement, its consistency with other evidence, and whether it fits into the overall narrative of the prosecution case.[2, 5, 12] As held in State Of Rajasthan v. Raja Ram, an extra-judicial confession should inspire confidence.[5, 18]

The Imperative of Corroboration

While there is no absolute rule of law that an extra-judicial confession cannot form the sole basis of conviction, prudence and judicial practice dictate that courts generally seek corroboration from other independent evidence.[1, 3, 4, 5, 7, 8, 9, 11, 12, 17, 18, 22] The Supreme Court in Pakkirisamy v. State Of T.N. emphasized the necessity of independent and reliable corroboration for extra-judicial confessions.[1, 3] Similarly, in Sahadevan And Another v. State Of Tamil Nadu, the Court acquitted the accused where the extra-judicial confession lacked substantial corroborative evidence and was contradicted by other testimony.[3]

The need for corroboration becomes even more acute if the confession is retracted,[13] or if there are suspicious circumstances surrounding it.[3, 16] As observed in Union Of India And Others (S) v. Major R. Metri No. 08585N (S), an 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 evidence.[12] However, if an extra-judicial confession is found to be voluntary, truthful, and inspires confidence, it can, in some cases, form the basis for conviction even without corroboration, though this is rare.[9, 20, 25] The court in YUVARAJ v. STATE explicitly stated that if nothing else is available, an uncorroborated EJC cannot be relied upon.[11]

Circumstances Influencing Credibility

Several factors influence the credibility of an extra-judicial confession:

  • Person to whom the confession is made: The character, relationship, and credibility of the witness to whom the confession was allegedly made are crucial.[17, 19, 24, 26] A confession made to a person in whom the accused has implicit faith is more likely to be believed than one made to a total stranger or a person with whom the accused has no apparent reason to confide.[17, 24, 26] In State Of Punjab v. Gurdeep Singh, the Supreme Court doubted a confession made to a taxi driver with no special relationship or influence.[24] Similarly, in Rajendran v. State, a confession to a Village Administrative Officer (VAO) who was a stranger to the accused was viewed with skepticism.[26]
  • Time and Place of Confession: The circumstances, time, and place of making the confession are relevant.[19] A confession made shortly after the incident may carry more weight than one made after a considerable delay, unless the delay is satisfactorily explained.[24]
  • Motive for Confession: The reason why the accused chose to confide in that particular person can be a significant factor.[24]
  • Exact Words and Details: While it is ideal for the witness to recall the exact words of the confession, the substance of the admission is more important. However, significant discrepancies or inherent improbabilities in the reported statement can render it unreliable.[11, 18] An overly detailed confession, as noted in Chakarai Alias Chakaravarthi v. State Rep. By Inspector Of Police, can sometimes be suspicious, suggesting an attempt to create evidence.[21] The court in YUVARAJ v. STATE noted that the EJC was not a reproduction of the exact words of the accused, which was a factor in its rejection.[11]

Recording and Proof of Extra-Judicial Confessions

Proving the Confession in Court

An extra-judicial confession is proved through the testimony of the witness to whom it was made.[12, 20] This witness must depose in court about the statement made by the accused. The court then evaluates the credibility of this witness and the circumstances surrounding the alleged confession. As stated in Union Of India And Others (S) v. Major R. Metri No. 08585N (S), such a statement "essentially has to be proved like any other fact and in accordance with law."[12, 18]

Delay in Disclosure or Recording

Unexplained delay by the witness in disclosing the confession to the authorities can be a suspicious circumstance casting doubt on its veracity.[8, 17, 22, 24] In State Of Punjab v. Gurdeep Singh, a delay of more than 20 days in the witness reporting the EJC was considered a matter of great suspicion.[24] Similarly, in Ramnandan v. State Of Chhattisgarh, a significant delay in the disclosure of the EJC by the witnesses (son and daughter-in-law of the accused) in their statements under Section 161 CrPC was noted.[17]

Confessions to Village Administrative Officers (VAOs) and Similar Authorities

Confessions are often allegedly made to VAOs or other local officials. While a VAO is not a police officer for the purpose of Section 25 of the Evidence Act, the circumstances of such confessions are closely scrutinized.[23, 25, 26, 27, 29, 30] Issues such as whether the VAO was a stranger to the accused,[26] whether the VAO had the authority or was in charge of the village,[26] and whether the confession was made before police investigation commenced can be critical.[23] In Sivakumar v. State By Inspector Of Police, Rule 72 of the Criminal Rules of Practice, which prohibited a Village Magistrate from recording an extra-judicial confession after police investigation has begun, was cited.[23] The case of Tamilselvan v. State Inspector Of Police highlighted contradictions and prior examination of the accused by others which diminished the value of an EJC recorded by a VAO.[27, 29, 30]

Judicial Scrutiny: Guiding Principles

The Supreme Court and various High Courts have laid down several guiding principles for the evaluation of extra-judicial confessions. The judgment in Sahadevan And Another v. State Of Tamil Nadu, referencing earlier decisions, encapsulates many of these.[3] The Chhattisgarh High Court in Nand Lal Kanwar v. State Of Chhattisgarh and Anil Soni v. State Of Chhattisgarh, drawing from Supreme Court precedents like Balwinder Singh (1995), Sk. Yusuf, and Pancho, summarized these percepts:[16, 18]

  1. The extra-judicial confession is weak evidence by itself and must be examined with greater care and caution.
  2. It should be made voluntarily and should be truthful.
  3. It should inspire confidence.
  4. It attains greater credibility and evidentiary value if supported by a chain of cogent circumstances and further corroborated by other prosecution evidence.
  5. For it to be the basis of conviction, it should not suffer from any material discrepancies and inherent improbabilities.
  6. Such a statement must be proved like any other fact and in accordance with law.

The "panchsheel" or five golden principles for proof of a case based on circumstantial evidence, as reiterated in State Of Uttarakhand v. Stainley Singh Raimi & Others S (citing Sharad Birdhichand Sarda v. State Of Maharashtra), are also relevant when an extra-judicial confession forms part of the circumstantial evidence.[5, 6, 19] The chain of evidence must be complete and conclusively point towards the guilt of the accused, excluding every other hypothesis.[19]

Distinction from Judicial Confessions

It is crucial to distinguish extra-judicial confessions from judicial confessions recorded under Section 164 CrPC.[2, 13, 20] Judicial confessions are recorded by a Magistrate who is duty-bound to ensure that the confession is voluntary, to explain to the accused that they are not bound to make a confession, and that if they do so, it may be used as evidence against them.[2, 13, 14, 15] These procedural safeguards lend greater evidentiary weight to judicial confessions. Extra-judicial confessions lack these safeguards, which is a primary reason for the caution with which they are approached.[13] As noted in Ramachandran, In Re., even a judicially recorded confession, if retracted, would require material corroboration, a standard that applies with even greater force to retracted extra-judicial confessions.[13]

Conclusion

The recording and admissibility of extra-judicial confessions in Indian criminal law present a complex evidentiary challenge. While not inherently inadmissible, their acceptance by courts is contingent upon a rigorous assessment of their voluntariness, truthfulness, and the credibility of the witness deposing to them. The judiciary, guided by a wealth of precedents, consistently emphasizes the need for caution and, generally, corroboration from independent evidence. An extra-judicial confession must inspire confidence and fit seamlessly into the broader mosaic of the prosecution's case. It cannot be a standalone piece of evidence unless it is of such impeccable quality that it dispels all reasonable doubts. The principles evolved by Indian courts aim to balance the probative value of a genuine confession with the imperative to safeguard against wrongful convictions based on unreliable or coerced statements, thereby upholding the tenets of fair trial and justice.

References

  1. Pakkirisamy v. State Of T.N . (1997 SCC 8 158, Supreme Court Of India, 1997)
  2. Shankaria v. State Of Rajasthan . (1978 SCC 4 453, Supreme Court Of India, 1978)
  3. Sahadevan And Another v. State Of Tamil Nadu . (2012 SCC 6 403, Supreme Court Of India, 2012)
  4. Maghar Singh v. State Of Punjab . (1975 SCC 4 234, Supreme Court Of India, 1975)
  5. State Of Rajasthan v. Raja Ram . (2003 SCC 8 180, Supreme Court Of India, 2003)
  6. Sk. Yusuf v. State Of West Bengal . (2011 SCC 11 754, Supreme Court Of India, 2011)
  7. Gura Singh v. State Of Rajasthan . (2001 SCC 2 205, Supreme Court Of India, 2000)
  8. Pancho v. State Of Haryana . (2011 SCC 10 165, Supreme Court Of India, 2011)
  9. State Of U.P v. M.K Anthony . (1985 SCC 1 505, Supreme Court Of India, 1984)
  10. Balwinder Singh Alias Dalbir Singh v. State Of Punjab . (1987 SCC 1 1, Supreme Court Of India, 1986)
  11. YUVARAJ v. STATE (Madras High Court, 2023)
  12. Union Of India And Others (S) v. Major R. Metri No. 08585N (S). (Supreme Court Of India, 2022)
  13. Ramachandran, In Re. (Madras High Court, 1959)
  14. Kishore And Others v. State Of Maharashtra . (Supreme Court Of India, 2005)
  15. Central Bureau Of Investigation v. Ashiq Hussain Faktoo And Others (Supreme Court Of India, 2003)
  16. Anil Soni v. State Of Chhattisgarh (Chhattisgarh High Court, 2024)
  17. Ramnandan v. State Of Chhattisgarh (Chhattisgarh High Court, 2023)
  18. Nand Lal Kanwar v. State Of Chhattisgarh (Chhattisgarh High Court, 2024)
  19. State Of Uttarakhand v. Stainley Singh Raimi & Others S (Uttarakhand High Court, 2017)
  20. Dhedya Bajya Valvi v. The State Of Maharashtra . (Bombay High Court, 1995)
  21. Chakarai Alias Chakaravarthi v. State Rep. By Inspector Of Police . (2019 SCC ONLINE SC 90, Supreme Court Of India, 2019)
  22. Pancho v. State Of Haryana . (2011 SCC 10 165, Supreme Court Of India, 2011) [Duplicate of 8, but often cited this way]
  23. Sivakumar v. State By Inspector Of Police . (2006 SCC 1 714, Supreme Court Of India, 2005)
  24. State Of Punjab v. Gurdeep Singh . (1999 SCC 7 714, Supreme Court Of India, 1999)
  25. R. Kuppusamy v. State (2013 SCC 3 322, Supreme Court Of India, 2013)
  26. Rajendran v. State By Inspector Of Police (Madras High Court, 2006)
  27. Tamilselvan v. State Inspector Of Police . (Madras High Court, 2020)
  28. Kuppamuthu @ Kuppuswamy v. State Represented By Inspector Of Police (Madras High Court, 2008)
  29. Tamilselvan v. State, Inspector of Police, Namakkal (Madras High Court, 2020) [Duplicate of 27, possibly different citation style]
  30. Tamilselvan v. State, Inspector of Police, Namakkal (Madras High Court, 2020) [Duplicate of 27/29]