Conviction in murder case cannot be based solely on extra-judicial confession of co-accused: Supreme Court

The Supreme Court recently reiterated that extra-judicial confession is a weak piece of evidence and when made by the co-accused, it can be admitted only as a corroborative piece of evidence [Chandrapal v. State of Chhattisgarh]..A Division Bench of Justices DY Chandrachud and Bela M Trivedi held that conviction in a murder case cannot be based solely on the extra-judicial confession of the co-accused and in the absence of any substantive evidence against the accused, the extra-judicial confession allegedly made by the co-accused will not be of significance. "The extra-judicial confession made by the co-accused could be admitted in evidence only as a corroborative piece of evidence. In absence of any substantive evidence against the accused, the extra judicial confession allegedly made by the co-accused loses its significance and there cannot be any conviction based on such extra judicial confession of the co-accused," the Court stated. .In the instant case, the four accused i.e., Bhagirathi, Chandrapal, Mangal Singh and Videshi were convicted by the Sessions Court for offences under Sections 302 (murder), 201 (causing disappearance of evidence of offence, or giving false information to screen offender) read with Section 34 (common intention) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and also for the offence under Section 3(2)(v) of the Schedule Caste and Schedule Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act 1989.The Chhattisgarh High Court partially allowed the appeal of Bhagirathi Kumhar, Mangal Singh and Videshi, and set aside their conviction for the offence under Section 302 read with Section 34 of IPC, nonetheless confirmed their conviction for the offence under Section 201 read with Section 34 of IPC. The Court, however, dismissed the appeal filed by Chandrapal. Aggrieved, Chandrapal (appellant) moved the present appeal before the apex court..The appellant argued before the Supreme Court that there were major contradictions in the evidence of prosecution witnesses as regards the alleged extra-judicial confession made by the accused Videshi. It was contended that the conviction cannot be based on the extra-judicial confession of the co-accused since this is a very weak kind of evidence.On the other hand, the State while conceding that an extra-judicial confession is a weak piece of evidence, submitted that there was corroborative evidence adduced by the prosecution which conclusively proved the entire chain of circumstances leading to the guilt of the appellant..The Supreme Court noted that as per Section 30 of the Indian Evidence Act, when more persons than one are being tried jointly for the same offence, and a confession made by one of such persons affecting himself and other persons is proved, the court may take into consideration such confession as against such other person as well as against the person who makes such confession.The Bench, however, made it clear that an extra-judicial confession is weak evidence and unless it inspires confidence or is fully corroborated by some other evidence of clinching nature, ordinarily conviction for the offence of murder should not be made solely on the basis of such extra-judicial confession. "Extra-judicial confession is a weak evidence by itself and it has to be examined by the court with greater care and caution. It should be truthful and should inspire confidence. An extra-judicial confession attains greater credibility and evidentiary value if it is supported by chain of cogent circumstances and is further corroborated by other prosecution evidence," the Court said.Therefore, the Court was of the view that if such weak piece of evidence of the co-accused Videshi was not duly proved or found trustworthy for holding the other co-accused guilty of committing murder of the deceased, the High Court could not have used the said evidence against the present appellant for the purpose of holding him guilty.Consequently, the Court allowed the appeal of the appellant and set aside the order of conviction passed by the High Court..[Read Judgment]