Important Point
Delay in recording extra-judicial confession before a person wholly unconnected with the police is always a matter of great suspect.

Judgment

Banerjee, J.-The short question involved in the matter in issue before this Court is the justifiability of the order of acquittal passed by the High Court by reason of lack of probative value of an extra judicial confession, as found by the High Court, in an appeal against conviction and sentence under Section 376 read with Sections 302 and 201 of the Indian Penal Code.

2. Admittedly, there is no direct evidence available on the record so as to attribute the commission of crime to the respondent herein but it is only on the basis of an extra judicial confession that the learned Sessions Judge thought it fit to pass the sentence for life imprisonment, which stands reversed by the High Court.

3. Confession in common acceptation means and implies acknowledgment of guilt - its evidentiary value and its acceptability however shall have to be assessed by the Court having due regard to the credibility of the witnesses. In the event however, the Court is otherwise in a position having due regard to the attending circumstances believes the witness before whom the confession is made and is otherwise satisfied that the confession is in fact voluntary and without there being any doubt in regard thereto, an order of conviction can be founded on such evidence.

4. The observations of this Court in the case of State of Uttar Pradesh v. M.K. Anthony1, seems to be rather apposite in this context.

In paragraph 15 of the Report, this Court observed as below :

“There is neither any rule of law nor of prudence that evidence fur­nished by extra-judicial confession cannot be relied upon unless corroborated by some other credible evidence. The Courts have consid­ered the evidence of extra judicial confession a weak piece of evi­dence. If the evidence about extra judicial confession comes from the mouth of witness/witnesses who appear to be unbiased, not even remote­ly inimical to the accused, and in respect of whom nothing is brought out which may tend to indicate that he may have a motive for attribut­ing an untruthful statement to the accused; the words spoken to by the witness are clear, unambiguous and unmistakably convey that the ac­cused is the perpetrator of the crime and nothing is omitted by the witness which may militate against it, then after subjecting the evi­dence of the witness to a rigorous test on the touchstone of credibil­ity, if it passes the test, the extra judicial confession can be accepted and be the basis of a conviction. In such a situation, to go in search of corroboration itself tends to cast a shadow of doubt over the evidence. If the evidence of extra judicial confession is reliable, trustworthy and beyond reproach the same can be relied upon and a conviction can be founded thereon.”

5. Incidentally, this Court in the case of Narayan Singh & Ors. v. State of M.P.2, expressly observed that it is not open to any court to start with a presumption that extra judicial confession is a weak type of evidence. In paragraph 7 of the report this Court observed :

“Apart from this there is the evidence of PWs 5 and 9 who state on oath that one of the accused admitted before them that he had murdered the deceased. The learned Sessions Judge has brushed aside their evidence by presuming that their statements constituting an extra judicial confession is a very weak type of evidence. This is a wrong view of the law. It is not open to any court to start with a presump­tion that extra judicial confession is a weak type of evidence. It would depend on the nature of the circumstances, the time when the confession was made and the credibility of the witnesses who speak to such a confession. In the instant case, after perusing the evidence of PWs 5 and 9 we are unable to find anything which could lead to the conclusion that these independent witnesses were not telling the truth. The evidence of these two witnesses (PWs 5 and 9) which lends support to the evidence of PW 11 was sufficient to warrant the convi­ction of the accused. The Sessions