Extrajudicial Confessions

Confession is an admission of guilt made by a accused in a criminal case. The general rule is that only a truthful confession is worthy of being used against an accused and is considered a reliable piece of evidence to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt. However, the admissibility of confession does not automatically render it true. In case of extrajudicial confessions, there are additional factors that must be taken into consideration in order to determine its truthfulness and admissibility in a court of law. This article seeks to explore the concept of extrajudicial confessions and the principles governing its admissibility in criminal trials.

Extrajudicial confession is any statement made by an accused which is not made before a court of law, but rather made in the course of investigation by the police or to the media or to any other person. There is no specific provision under the Indian Evidence Act that deals with the admissibility of extrajudicial confessions. However, confession has been recognized as an important piece of evidence under Section 24 and 25 of the Act.

The Supreme Court of India in the case of Pakala Narayana Swami v. Emperor has laid down principles to determine the admissibility of confession. It has been held that in order for a confession to be admissible, it must be voluntary, genuine, and made in the soundness of mind. The burden of proving the admissibility of the confession lies on the prosecution and must be established beyond a reasonable doubt. The court must be satisfied that the confession has been made without any inducement, threat, or promise.

The most important factor to consider in determining the truthfulness of extrajudicial confession is the reliability of the accused's statement. In Raja Ram Singh v. State of M.P, the Supreme Court held that the court has to look for corroboration and make sure that the confession is voluntary and genuine before relying upon it for conviction. It must be supported by material evidence and must be consistent with other evidence on record. Furthermore, the Supreme Court in Kartik Biswas v. State of Orissa held that confessional statement must be corroborated not only from the other prosecution evidence but also from the manner in which the crime was committed.

Another crucial factor to be considered is the mental capacity of the accused at the time of making the confession. In State of U.P v. M.K Anthony, the Supreme Court held that the accused's mental state at the time of making the confession must be taken into account. In case of an accused suffering from a mental illness or being of unsound mind, the confession may not be considered reliable enough and must not be relied upon to establish guilt.

The chain of evidence in connection with confessional statements must be complete and the accused must have the opportunity to cross-exam the officer who recorded the confession. In the case of Laxman v. State of M.P, it was held that a confession to a third person does not, standing alone, become admissible. The accused must be given the chance to explain the circumstances in which the confession was made and to demonstrate that it was not made voluntarily.

Moreover, in order for an accused to be convicted based on an extrajudicial confession, it must be proved that the accused committed the crime by his/her own admission. In Sunil Kumar Sambhudayal Gupta v. State of Maharashtra, the Supreme Court held that a mere confession without any evidence connecting the accused with the crime would not be sufficient to hold him/her guilty. There must be some corroborative evidence to link the accused with the crime.

In conclusion, a confession in a criminal trial holds significant value but must be supported by other material evidence and must be deemed voluntary and genuine. Extrajudicial confessions have been recognized as admissible evidence, but the court cannot base its conviction solely on such statements. The principles laid down by the Supreme Court must be strictly adhered to and the prosecution must prove the admissibility and truthfulness of the confession beyond reasonable doubt. An accused must have the opportunity to explain the circumstances in which the confession was made and the confessional statement must be corroborated with other evidence on record. The court must ensure that the confession is not made under any threat, promise, or inducement, and that the accused was in a sound state of mind at the time of making the statement. These principles must be followed in order to maintain the sanctity of a confession and to ensure that justice is served.