Supreme Court overturns conviction based on weak extra-judicial confession: Pawan Kumar Chourasia vs. State of Bihar (2023)

Date of the Judgment: 14 March 2023

Citation: (2023) INSC 228

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

Can a conviction be solely based on an extra-judicial confession, especially when the confession is not made to a person of trust? The Supreme Court of India recently addressed this question in a criminal appeal, ultimately acquitting the accused. This case highlights the importance of scrutinizing extra-judicial confessions and ensuring they are reliable and voluntary. The judgment was delivered by a bench of Justices Abhay S. Oka and Rajesh Bindal, with Justice Abhay S. Oka authoring the opinion.

Case Background

The case originated from the murder of two young boys, Kamlesh and Bulla, who went missing on June 2, 1989. A missing person report was filed on June 10, 1989, by Lakhi Prasad Chourasia (PW-5), the father of Kamlesh and uncle of Bulla. On June 20, 1989, PW-5 received information that the appellant, Pawan Kumar Chourasia, along with others, had murdered the boys. PW-5, accompanied by others, confronted the appellant, who allegedly confessed to the crime and revealed the location of the bodies. The bodies were recovered from a field, and a First Information Report (FIR) was lodged. The appellant was subsequently charged under Section 302 (murder) read with Section 34 (common intention) and Section 201 (causing disappearance of evidence) of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.

Timeline

Course of Proceedings

The Trial Court convicted the appellant based on the extra-judicial confession. The High Court upheld this conviction, leading to the present appeal before the Supreme Court of India. The primary evidence against the appellant was the extra-judicial confession he allegedly made to multiple witnesses.

Legal Framework

The case primarily concerns the interpretation and application of the following provisions of the Indian Penal Code, 1860:

• Section 302: This section defines the punishment for murder.
• Section 34: This section deals with acts done by several persons in furtherance of a common intention.
• Section 201: This section deals with causing disappearance of evidence of offence, or giving false information to screen offender.

The Supreme Court also discussed the evidentiary value of extra-judicial confessions, noting that while such confessions can form the basis of a conviction, they are generally considered a weak form of evidence. The court emphasized that for an extra-judicial confession to be reliable, it must be voluntary, truthful, and free from any inducement. The credibility of the confession also depends on the person to whom it is made, with confessions to close acquaintances or persons of trust being more reliable than those made to strangers. The Court also noted that while corroboration is not mandatory, it does add to the credibility of the confession.

Arguments

The prosecution’s case rested heavily on the extra-judicial confession allegedly made by the appellant. The prosecution argued that the appellant confessed to the murder of the two boys and led the witnesses to the location of the bodies. The prosecution presented the testimonies of PW-7, PW-8, and PW-9, who claimed to have heard the appellant’s confession.

The defense argued that the extra-judicial confession was unreliable and inconsistent. The defense pointed out several discrepancies in the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses, including:

• The witnesses provided different accounts of where and when the confession was made.
• Some witnesses, like PW-8, did not report the confession to the police despite being related to one of the deceased.
• The witnesses did not have a close relationship with the appellant, making it unlikely that he would confide in them.
• The first informant and other witnesses turned hostile, further weakening the prosecution’s case.

The defense also highlighted the fact that the prosecution failed to examine Bhagirath, in whose field the bodies were found, and who was allegedly present when the confession was made, according to PW-9.

The innovativeness of the defense argument lies in its focus on the inconsistencies and improbabilities in the prosecution’s case, particularly regarding the circumstances surrounding the alleged extra-judicial confession.

Submissions Table

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The primary issue before the Supreme Court was:

1. Whether the conviction of the appellant based solely on the extra-judicial confession is sustainable.

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

Authorities

The Supreme Court did not cite any specific cases or books in this judgment. However, the court discussed the well-established legal principles regarding the evidentiary value of extra-judicial confessions.

The Court reiterated that an extra-judicial confession is a weak piece of evidence and can be the basis of conviction only if it is voluntary, truthful and free of any inducement. The Court also mentioned that the evidentiary value of such confession depends on the person to whom it is made.

Authorities Considered by the Court

Judgment

How each submission made by the Parties was treated by the Court?

How each authority was viewed by the Court?

• The Court reiterated that the extra-judicial confession is a weak piece of evidence and can be the basis of conviction only if it is voluntary, truthful and free of any inducement. The Court also mentioned that the evidentiary value of such confession depends on the person to whom it is made.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court’s decision was primarily influenced by the following factors:

• Inconsistency in Witness Testimonies: The court noted that the testimonies of PW-7, PW-8, and PW-9 were inconsistent regarding the place and circumstances of the alleged extra-judicial confession.
• Lack of Trust: The court observed that the witnesses were not close to the appellant, making it unlikely that he would confide in them about such a serious crime.
• Unnatural Conduct of Witnesses: The court found it unusual that the witnesses did not report the confession to the police and instead accompanied the appellant to the field where the bodies were buried.
• Non-examination of Bhagirath: The court noted the prosecution’s failure to examine Bhagirath, who was allegedly present when the confession was made and in whose field the bodies were found.
• Lack of Corroboration: The court emphasized that there was no other evidence to corroborate the extra-judicial confession.

The Court emphasized that the prosecution’s case about the extra-judicial confession did not inspire confidence at all. The Court stated, “Therefore, in our considered view, the evidence in form of the extra­judicial confession of the appellant deserves to be discarded.“

Sentiment Analysis of Reasons

Fact:Law Ratio

Logical Reasoning

Judgment

The Supreme Court, after analyzing the evidence and arguments, concluded that the extra-judicial confession was unreliable and could not form the basis of a conviction. The Court stated, “Admittedly, there is no other evidence against the appellant. Therefore, the conviction of the appellant cannot be sustained at all.” The Court set aside the judgments of the High Court and the Trial Court and acquitted the appellant of all charges. The Court also ordered the cancellation of the appellant’s bail bonds.

The court’s reasoning was based on several factors, including the inconsistencies in the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses, the lack of a close relationship between the appellant and the witnesses, the unnatural conduct of the witnesses, the non-examination of a key witness, and the lack of corroborating evidence. The Court emphasized that an extra-judicial confession is a weak piece of evidence and must be scrutinized carefully before it can form the basis of a conviction.

The judgment was unanimous, with both Justices Abhay S. Oka and Rajesh Bindal agreeing on the outcome.

Key Takeaways

• Extra-judicial confessions are considered a weak form of evidence and require careful scrutiny.
• For an extra-judicial confession to be reliable, it must be voluntary, truthful, and free from any inducement.
• The evidentiary value of an extra-judicial confession depends on the person to whom it is made. Confessions to close acquaintances or persons of trust are generally considered more reliable.
• Corroboration of an extra-judicial confession is not mandatory but adds to its credibility.
• Inconsistencies in witness testimonies and unnatural conduct of witnesses can weaken the credibility of an extra-judicial confession.
• The prosecution must present a strong case with reliable evidence to secure a conviction.

Directions

The Supreme Court directed that the bail bonds of the appellant stand cancelled.

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of this case is that a conviction cannot be solely based on an extra-judicial confession if the confession is unreliable, inconsistent, and not made to a person of trust. This judgment reinforces the importance of scrutinizing extra-judicial confessions and ensuring that they are supported by other credible evidence. There is no change in the previous position of the law, but this judgment reiterates the law on extra-judicial confessions.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court’s judgment in Pawan Kumar Chourasia vs. State of Bihar highlights the critical importance of ensuring the reliability of evidence, especially in criminal cases. The Court’s decision to overturn the conviction based on a weak extra-judicial confession underscores the need for thorough investigation and corroboration of evidence. This case serves as a reminder that while extra-judicial confessions can be considered, they must be scrutinized carefully and cannot be the sole basis for a conviction, especially when there are inconsistencies and improbabilities in the evidence.

Category

Parent Category: Criminal Law

Child Categories:

• Evidence
• Extra-Judicial Confession
• Indian Penal Code, 1860
• Section 302, Indian Penal Code, 1860
• Section 34, Indian Penal Code, 1860
• Section 201, Indian Penal Code, 1860

FAQ

Q: What is an extra-judicial confession?

A: An extra-judicial confession is a statement made by an accused person admitting to a crime, but not made in court or to a magistrate. It is made outside of a judicial setting.

Q: Can a person be convicted solely based on an extra-judicial confession?

A: While it is possible, it is not ideal. The courts generally consider extra-judicial confessions as weak evidence. For a conviction to be based solely on such a confession, it must be proven to be voluntary, truthful, and free from any inducement. The person to whom the confession is made must also be someone the accused trusts.

Q: What should I do if someone confesses a crime to me?

A: If someone confesses a crime to you, it is important to report it to the police. You should also try to remember the details of the confession, including when and where it was made and who was present.

Q: What does this judgment mean for criminal cases in India?

A: This judgment reinforces the importance of scrutinizing extra-judicial confessions and ensuring they are reliable. It emphasizes that convictions should not be based solely on such confessions, especially when there are inconsistencies and improbabilities in the evidence. The prosecution must present a strong case with reliable evidence.

Q: What is the significance of the court’s emphasis on the relationship between the accused and the person to whom the confession was made?

A: The court’s emphasis highlights that a confession is more likely to be genuine if made to someone the accused trusts. Confessions to strangers or those with whom the accused has no close relationship are considered less reliable.