No Reliance Can Be Placed On Extra Judicial Confessions Made In Police Station Before Police Officers & Other People: Supreme Court

The Apex Court was considering an appeal filed by the accused persons convicted in an alleged case of murder.

The Division Bench of Justice K. V. Viswanathan and Justice K. Vinod Chandran held, “One another circumstance, heavily relied upon by the trial court and the High Court are the extra judicial confessions made by A2 to various persons, but all inside the police station.The First Information Report was on the complaint made by PW-18, the wife of the deceased, though the information first supplied was by A2 in the morning, to PW-15, the SHO and PW-17, the Sentry. Both these extra judicial confessions have been made in the police station before the police officers, even according to the prosecution, on which no reliance can be placed. PW-18, the wife of the deceased deposed that it was A2 who revealed to her the murder of her husband, at the police station, which was the testimony of PW-7 also. The extra judicial confessions and the context in which they were made, within the police station cannot at all be relied upon”, it added.

Factual Background

It was alleged that a police man (first accused) took a loan from another police man, the deceased, who was killed by the wife, brother and brother-in-law of the former; at his instigation. The deceased, the driver of a Superintendent of Police made persistent demands for repayment of the loan. This led to the second accused, the wife of the first accused, calling the deceased to her home on the pretext of repaying the debt. The next day, the victim was made immobile by throwing chilli powder on his face and hacked to death with two choppers wielded by the accused. The second accused then, after sunrise, went directly to the police station and confessed to the SHO about the crime and apprised him of the presence of the dead body in her house. The SHO deputed a police constable to make enquiries, and later an inquest was done at the house of the second accused, after which the body was taken to the hospital.

The Trial Court held that there was nothing to indicate an instigation and acquitted the first accused. Other accused persons (A2 to A4) were convicted under Section 302 read with Section 34 and were sentenced to life. The High Court affirmed the findings of the Trial Court in an appeal. Aggrieved thereby, the accused persons appraoched the Apex Court.

Reasoning

The Bench found that the present case was one of circumstantial evidence, especially since the eyewitnesses who were projected as tenants in the building in which the crime occurred, turned hostile. As per the allegation of the prosecution, a police man was killed by the wife of another police man, with the aid of her brother and brother-in-law. Upon the sad news being conveyed to the wife of the deceased, she allegedly went to the premises with her relatives and friends; the latter of whom were either police men or their spouses.

Referring to the Doctor’s opinion that the death was caused due to the injuries sustained to the head and all the internal and external injuries were ante-mortem in nature, the Bench noted that the death was homicidal in nature. The Bench explained, “Absence of motive is not an imperative circumstance to arrive at a conviction, in a case where there is ocular evidence. The role of motive is not very significant even when circumstances otherwise form an unbreakable chain. Motive only provides another link, and the absence of motive is a factor that weighs in favour of the accused as held in Babu v. State of Kerala.”

The Bench did not find a motive in this case of the financial transaction having led to the crime. The prosecution's case was that the deceased was summoned over telephone to the house of the second accused on the pretext of repaying the loan. However, the wife had no case that the deceased had left the house on such a mission, after a telephone call. There was also no clear evidence as to whether the deceased returned to his home in the evening of that day.

The Bench also found that the extrajudicial confessions made by the second accused to various persons inside the police station couldnot be relied upon. The Bench explained that Section 25 of the Evidence Act mandates that no confession made to a police officer shall be proved as against a person accused of any offence and Section 26 restricts any confession by a person in the custody of a police officer from being proved against him unless it is made in the immediate presence of a Magistrate.

“The fact that confessions were made by both the accused and the recovery was made from one of the accused, A4, leading the police to the spot would restrain us from treating the recovery as an inculpating circumstance against A3 or A4, especially when the confession is taken simultaneously from both the accused”, it further noted.

The Bench stated, “Undisputably, the case is one of circumstantial evidence which is treated as proved only when there is a complete chain of circumstances, comprising cogent and reliable material, providing an unbreakable link, leading only to the culpability of the accused and bringing forth the hypothesis only of guilt and not leading to any reasonable doubt as to the guilt or otherwise of the accused. The motive projected and the crime itself has not at all been proved and there is no circumstance leading to the culpability of the accused. The presence of the dead body in the house of the accused is also under a cloud and in any event, that, with the absence of a proper explanation cannot by itself bring home a conviction.”

Thus, setting aside the conviction and acquitting the accused, the Bench allowed the appeal.

Cause Title: Nagamma @ Nagarathna v. The State of Karnataka (Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 1135)

Click here to read/download Judgment