Extra-judicial confession weak evidence; conviction without corroboration not justified: Supreme Court

The Supreme Court on Monday held that the extra-judicial confession is a weak piece of evidence and such evidence is admissible only if it is voluntary, trustworthy and reliable [Union of India v. Major R. Metri NO. 08585N]..A bench of Justices L Nageswara Rao and BR Gavai held that conviction solely on the basis of extra-judicial confession without corroboration by other evidence is not justified.Whether a person was compelled to make an extra-judicial statement or not, is a question of fact in each case which shall be determined by the Court on weighing the facts and circumstances disclosed in the evidence before it, the apex court added.It, therefore, acquitted an Army Major of charges under Prevention of Corruption Act and Army Act since his conviction by the fora below was based on extra-judicial confesssion.The Court was hearing two cross-appeals challenge the judgments passed by the Armed Forces Tribunal, Regional bench, Kochi (AFT).The Central government challenged that part of the judgment which set aside the order of conviction passed by the General Court Martial (GCM) under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (PC Act) read with Section 69 of the Army Act, 1950 and the sentence of cashiering from service and suffering of rigorous imprisonment for one year. The respondent Major also appealed against the same AFT judgment which had convicted him for offence punishable under Section 63 of the Army Act and sentenced him to punishment of forfeiture of seniority of rank and severe reprimand.The respondent was posted as Recruiting Medical Officer, Army Recruiting Office in Rajasthan in the year 2008. It was the case of the prosecution that the respondent along with Major BSRK Prasad and Major D Srinivas took monetary gratification and favours in order to help certain candidates clear the medical test in the recruitment rallies conducted by the Army recruitment office.When media reports surfaced regarding the same, the respondent went to Colonel Anil Singh Rathore and confessed to him about his deeds. Thereafter, the respondent was asked by the Colonel to give a confession in writing and then the office of Superintendent of Police (SP) interrogated the respondent and others in an FIR filed under Section 420 (cheating) and 406 (criminal breach of trust) of the Indian Penal Code. The statement of the respondent was also recorded by the police.Subsequently, a court of inquiry was convened and General Officer in Commanding (GOC) South West Command was directed to conduct disciplinary inquiry. The proceedings were instituted against the respondent-officer and five other persons for offences under Section 69 of the Army Act for and Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (PC Act) for three instances of taking illegal gratification at Dharwad in January and February 2009 and at Jodhpur in January and April 2009.The respondent was found guilty by the GCM and was ordered to be removed from service and to suffer rigorous imprisonment for one year. The GOC confirmed the findings and sentence of the GCM, but remitted the unexpired portion of the sentence of rigorous imprisonment, vide order dated December 29, 2013.Aggrieved, the respondent filed an appeal before the AFT, Kochi which was partly allowed with the respondent being acquitted of the charges under Section 7 of the PC Act though the conviction under other offences was upheld. Both the parties have then filed the present cross-appeals against the order of the AFT before the apex court..The apex court held that the AFT would be justified in interfering with the finding of the court-martial where its finding is legally not sustainable due to any reason whatsoever.“It would be permissible for the learned AFT to interfere with such a finding when it involves a wrong decision on a question of law. Under clause(c) thereof, the learned AFT would be justified in allowing an appeal against conviction by a court-martial when there was a material irregularity in the course of the trial resulting in miscarriage of Justice,” the Judgment noted.The Supreme Court further opined that if the AFT’s decision is found to be a plausible one, it will not be permissible for the top court to interfere with the same only because this court finds the other view to be more probable/plausible. "Equally, unless the finding of the learned AFT is found to be perverse or impossible, an interference would not be justified,” the Court said.On the merits of the case,the Court held that the confession made by the respondent cannot be considered voluntary since the same was not corroborated at all by other evidence.The Court also noted that a single officer cannot declare a candidate medically fit.“It could thus be seen that a single officer like the respondent-officer cannot declare a candidate medically fit, if he is otherwise not. His evidence would show that the team like the one of which the respondent-officer was a member, only assists the independent members in the conduct of tests, measurements and the medical examination,” the apex court held.There was no evidence on record against the respondent officer that he has taken illegal gratification and received any amount. "In the present case, there is no corroboration at all. On the contrary, PW 1 Col. Anil Singh Rathore in his evidence has himself admitted that the respondentofficer was part of team ‘B’," the apex court said.The Court further noted all the three witnesses have admitted that they had no knowledge if any candidate, declared fit by the respondent-officer, was subsequently found to have been medically unfitTherefore, the Supreme Court found no error with the findings of the AFT regarding acquittal under Section 7 PC. The Court also ruled that the conviction of the respondent under Section 63 of the Army Act cannot be sustained.“It appears unnatural that the respondent-officer would make a voluntary confession on July 14, 2009 and the written statement on July 15, 2009 and that many more persons might be involved in the recruitment scam and in order to find a scapegoat, the possibility of the respondent-officer being asked to make a confessional statement with an assurance that no action will be taken against him, cannot be said to be an impossible view”, the judgment said.The Court, therefore, rejected the appeal filed by the Central government and allowed the respondent's appeal..Additional Solicitor General Vikramjit Banerjee appeared for the Central government while Advocate Gaurav Agrawal appeared for the respondent..[Read Judgment]