Extra-Judicial Confession A Weak Piece Of Evidence, But Can Be Relied Upon When Corroborated: Bombay High Court
The High Court held that there is neither a rule of law nor prudence that an extra-judicial confession cannot be acted upon unless corroborated, explaining that when supported by cogent surrounding circumstances and scientific material, it can form a reliable basis for conviction.
Justice Nandesh S. Deshpande and Justice Urmila Joshi-Phalke, Bombay High Court, Nagpur Bench
The Bombay High Court altered a conviction from murder to culpable homicide not amounting to murder, after holding that extra-judicial confessions can be relied upon while deciding a matter, when corroborated by other credible evidence.
The High Court was hearing a criminal appeal challenging a conviction under Section 302 IPC and life imprisonment imposed by a Sessions Court.
A Division Bench comprising Justice Urmila Joshi Phalke and Justice Nandesh S. Deshpande, while deciding the matter, observed that “extra judicial confession appears to have been treated as a weak piece of evidence, but there is no rule of law nor rule of prudence that it cannot be acted upon unless corroborated.”
Senior Advocate R.L. Khapre appeared for the appellant, while the State was represented by M.J. Khan, APP.
Background
As per the prosecution, the deceased was found inside the house of the accused in a badly decomposed condition. Blood-stained clothes, footwear, a pestle and a razor were also recovered from the spot. A medical officer who conducted the post-mortem examination noted multiple injuries, including incised wounds on the neck and head.
The prosecution relied on the recovery of a razor at the accused's instance under Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act. Scientific analysis indicated the presence of human blood on the recovered articles.
The case was founded entirely on circumstantial evidence. The prosecution argued that the chain of circumstances, acquaintance between the parties, recovery of the body from the accused’s premises, presence of blood-stained weapons, and an extra-judicial confession, clearly pointed to guilt, with no plausible alternative hypothesis.
The defence argued that the first information report, being a confessional statement, was inadmissible under Sections 24 and 25 of the Evidence Act. It was further contended that an extra-judicial confession is a weak form of evidence and that the prosecution failed to establish all links in the chain of circumstances. Exception 1 of Section 300 IPC was also invoked, submitting that the incident, if true, occurred as a result of grave and sudden provocation.
Court’s Observation
The Bombay High Court examined the case based on the circumstantial evidence presented. Reiterating settled principles, it held that circumstances must form a complete chain unerringly pointing towards guilt and ruling out innocence.
On the issue of admissibility of a confessional FIR, the Court relied on Aghnoo Nagesia v. State of Bihar and other precedents, holding that a confession before a police officer cannot be read against an accused except to the limited extent permitted by Section 27 of the Evidence Act. Therefore, the contents of the FIR could not be considered for proving guilt.
However, the Court upheld the evidentiary value of the extra-judicial confession made before an independent witness. The Bench noted that there is no legal bar on acting upon such a confession if it appears voluntary, credible, and is corroborated by surrounding material.
The Court cited the Supreme Court’s decisions in State of U.P. v. M.K. Anthony and Ramu Appa Mahapatra v. State of Maharashtra, observing that an extra-judicial confession is admissible if it inspires confidence and is corroborated by other evidence.
In the matter at hand, the Bench found corroboration in the form of the recovery of the body from inside the accused’s house, seizure of blood-stained weapons and clothes, medical evidence showing injuries consistent with the recovered articles, and scientific analysis confirming the presence of human blood on incriminating material.
On the question of the nature of the offence, the Court held that although death was caused by injuries inflicted with sharp and blunt objects, the surrounding circumstances demonstrated grave and sudden provocation. The Bench noted that there was no premeditation, and the incident occurred in the heat of the moment, within the confines of the residence.
Therefore, while culpable homicide was clearly established, it did not amount to murder under Section 300 IPC. The case, the Bench Concluded, fell within Exception 1, shifting the offence to Section 304-II IPC, which deals with knowledge of the likelihood of death but without intention to cause it.
Conclusion
The Bombay High Court partly allowed the appeal. The conviction under Section 302 IPC was set aside and replaced with a conviction under Section 304-II IPC. The sentence was modified to rigorous imprisonment for ten years, along with a fine. The benefit of set-off under Section 428 CrPC was granted, and the appellant was directed to surrender to the prison authorities to undergo the remaining sentence.
Cause Title: XYZ v. ABC (Neutral Citation: 2025:BHC-NAG:11229-DB)
Appearances:
Petitioner: R.L. Khapre, Senior Advocate with Mandar Deshpande, Advocate.
Respondent: Additional Public Prosecutor M.J. Khan