Supreme Court Acquits Accused Based on Weak Extra-Judicial Confession: Pawan Kumar Chourasia vs. State of Bihar (2023)

Introduction

Date of the Judgment: March 14, 2023

Citation: 2023 INSC 227

Judges: Abhay S. Oka, J., Rajesh Bindal, J.

Can a conviction be solely based on an extra-judicial confession, especially when the witnesses to the confession do not inspire confidence? The Supreme Court of India recently addressed this critical question in a criminal appeal, focusing on the reliability of extra-judicial confessions. The Court examined whether the extra-judicial confession in this case was made voluntarily and truthfully, and if it was reliable enough to form the basis of a conviction. The bench comprised of Justice Abhay S. Oka and Justice Rajesh Bindal.

Case Background

The case revolves around the murder of two young boys, Kamlesh and Bulla, who were reported missing on June 2, 1989. The First Information Report (FIR) was lodged on June 20, 1989, by Lakhi Prasad Chourasia (PW-5), the father of Kamlesh. PW-5 stated that he received secret information that the appellant, Pawan Kumar Chourasia, along with others, had murdered the boys. He, along with Radhey Prasad Mandal (PW-1), Kisan Lal Mandal (PW-4), Satya Narain Mandal (PW-6), and Mohammad Tamijuddin (PW-7), confronted the appellant. Initially, the appellant denied the allegations but later confessed to the murder and revealed the location of the bodies in a field belonging to one Bhagirath. The bodies were subsequently discovered at the location indicated by the appellant. The appellant was convicted by the trial court and the High Court upheld the conviction, based on the extra-judicial confession.

Timeline:

Legal Framework

The judgment primarily deals with the evidentiary value of an extra-judicial confession. An extra-judicial confession is a confession made by the accused outside of court to a person other than a magistrate. The Supreme Court noted that while an extra-judicial confession is generally considered a weak piece of evidence, it can form the basis of a conviction if it is proven to be voluntary, truthful, and free from any inducement. The Court emphasized that the reliability of such a confession depends on the person to whom it is made and the circumstances under which it was made. The court also noted that corroboration is not required as a matter of rule, but if the confession is corroborated by other evidence, it acquires more credibility.

Arguments

The prosecution’s case rested primarily on the extra-judicial confession allegedly made by the appellant to PW-7, PW-8, and PW-9. The prosecution argued that the appellant confessed to the murder of the two boys and led the witnesses to the location where the bodies were buried. The prosecution contended that this confession, coupled with the discovery of the bodies, was sufficient to prove the appellant’s guilt.

The defense, on the other hand, argued that the extra-judicial confession was unreliable and lacked credibility. The defense pointed out several inconsistencies in the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses. The defense highlighted that PW-1 to PW-6, including the complainant (PW-5), did not support the prosecution’s case. The defense also noted that the witnesses who claimed to have heard the confession did not report it to the police immediately, and their versions of the events were inconsistent.

The defense further argued that there was no evidence to suggest that the appellant had any implicit faith in the witnesses to whom he allegedly confessed, and therefore, the confession lacked credibility. The defense also questioned why Bhagirath, in whose field the bodies were found, was not examined by the prosecution.

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court framed the following issue:

1. Whether the extra-judicial confession made by the appellant was reliable and credible enough to form the basis of a conviction.

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

Authorities

The Supreme Court relied on the established principles regarding the evidentiary value of extra-judicial confessions. The court reiterated that extra-judicial confession is a weak piece of evidence and must be voluntary and truthful to form the basis of conviction. The court also noted that the reliability of such confession depends on the person to whom it was made and the circumstances under which it was made.

Judgment

How each authority was viewed by the Court?

The court reiterated the general principles regarding extra-judicial confessions, emphasizing that they are a weak piece of evidence and must be voluntary and truthful to form the basis of a conviction. The court found that the circumstances surrounding the alleged confession did not meet these requirements.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court’s decision was primarily influenced by the lack of reliability and credibility of the extra-judicial confession. The Court found the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses to be inconsistent and contradictory. The Court also noted the unnatural conduct of the witnesses in not reporting the confession to the police immediately. Additionally, the absence of any evidence of a close relationship between the appellant and the witnesses, which would have made the confession more believable, weighed heavily on the Court’s mind. The Court also considered the fact that there was no corroborating evidence to support the confession and that a key witness was not examined by the prosecution.

The Court’s reasoning was based on the following points:

• The testimonies of PW-7, PW-8, and PW-9 were inconsistent regarding the place and circumstances of the alleged confession.
• The witnesses did not report the confession to the police immediately, which is an unnatural conduct.
• There was no evidence to suggest that the appellant had any implicit faith in these witnesses, making the confession less credible.
• The prosecution failed to examine Bhagirath, in whose field the bodies were found, which was a significant omission.
• There was no other evidence to corroborate the extra-judicial confession.

The Court stated, “Hence, the prosecution’s case about extra­judicial confession does not inspire confidence at all.”

The Court further noted, “Moreover, there are no other circumstances brought on record which could support or corroborate the prosecution case.”

The Court concluded, “Therefore, in our considered view, the evidence in form of the extra­judicial confession of the appellant deserves to be discarded.”

Key Takeaways

• Extra-judicial confessions are generally considered a weak piece of evidence and require careful scrutiny.
• A conviction cannot be solely based on an extra-judicial confession unless it is proved to be voluntary, truthful, and free from any inducement.
• The reliability of an extra-judicial confession depends on the person to whom it is made and the circumstances under which it was made.
• Corroboration is not mandatory, but it enhances the credibility of an extra-judicial confession.
• Inconsistencies in the testimonies of witnesses to an extra-judicial confession can render it unreliable.
• The conduct of witnesses, such as not reporting the confession to the police immediately, can raise doubts about the credibility of the confession.
• The absence of a close relationship between the accused and the witnesses can also make an extra-judicial confession less credible.

Directions

The Supreme Court set aside the impugned judgments and acquitted the appellant of the offences alleged against him. The bail bonds of the appellant were cancelled.

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of this case is that an extra-judicial confession, by itself, is a weak piece of evidence and cannot be the sole basis for conviction unless it is proved to be voluntary, truthful, and free from any inducement. The Court reiterated the established principles regarding the evidentiary value of extra-judicial confessions, emphasizing the need for careful scrutiny of such confessions. This judgment reinforces the existing legal position on extra-judicial confessions and highlights the importance of corroborating evidence and the credibility of witnesses.

Conclusion

In the case of Pawan Kumar Chourasia vs. State of Bihar, the Supreme Court acquitted the appellant, emphasizing that the extra-judicial confession relied upon by the prosecution was unreliable and lacked credibility. The Court highlighted inconsistencies in the testimonies of the witnesses, their failure to report the confession to the police immediately, and the lack of evidence of implicit faith between the appellant and the witnesses. The judgment underscores the principle that an extra-judicial confession, by itself, is a weak piece of evidence and cannot be the sole basis for conviction unless it is proved to be voluntary, truthful, and free from any inducement.