Extra-judicial confession of accused need not in all cases be corroborated.

The Hon’ble Supreme Court today i.e. on 03.10.2018 in the matter of Ram Lal v. State of Himachal Pradesh, pronounced that the rule of prudence does not require that each and every circumstance mentioned in the confession with regard to the participation of the accused must be separately and independently corroborated.Conviction can be based on a voluntarily confession but the rule of prudence requires that wherever possible it should be corroborated by independent evidence.

The Hon’ble Apex Court, among other things, observed that:

Extra-judicial confession is a weak piece of evidence and the court must ensure that the same inspires confidence and is corroborated by other prosecution evidence. In order to accept extra-judicial confession, it must be voluntary and must inspire confidence. If the court is satisfied that the extra-judicial confession is voluntary, it can be acted upon to base the conviction. (Para 13)

Conviction can be based on a voluntary confession but the rule of prudence requires that wherever possible it should be corroborated by independent evidence. Extra-judicial confession of accused need not in all cases be corroborated. (Para 14)

As discussed above, if the court is satisfied that if the confession is voluntary, the conviction can be based upon the same. Rule of Prudence does not require that each and every circumstance mentioned in the confession with regard to the participation of the accused must be separately and independently corroborated.(Para 15)

Mere allegation of threat or inducement is not enough; in the court’s opinion, such inducement must be sufficient to cause a reasonable belief in the mind of the accused that by so confessing, he would get an advantage. (Para 16)

Copy of Judgement: Judgement 03-Oct-2018

-Tushar Kaushik

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *