Extra-judicial confession is weak evidence especially when retracted during trial: Supreme Court

The Supreme Court on Tuesday said that an extra-judicial confession is a weak piece of evidence especially when it has been retracted during the trial [Indrajit Das v. State of Tripura].A division bench of Justices BR Gavai and Vikram Nath stated that an extra-judicial confession requires strong evidence to corroborate it for it to be relied on in criminal cases. ."The extra-judicial confession is a weak piece of evidence and especially when it has been retracted during trial. It requires strong evidence to corroborate it and also it must be established that it was completely voluntary and truthful," the judgment said..The Court made the observation while setting aside the conviction of a man for the alleged murder of his friend. The trial court and the Tripura High Court had convicted the accused appellant under Section 302 (murder) read with Section 34 and Section 201 (causing disappearance of evidence, giving false information) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC)..Notably, the prosecution's case was based on circumstantial evidence. The alleged crime had not been directly seen by any of the witnesses, nor had the body of the alleged deceased man been recovered. .The criminal case was registered after the deceased man's uncle informed the police that his nephew, who had gone out on his bike with two friends the previous day, had been missing. Around the same time, the police had received information that a huge quantity of blood was found on road, along with a blood-stained knife and broken glass which could have been from the rear-view mirror of a motorcycle. .The police later apprehended the appellant and a juvenile boy, who allegedly confessed that they had assaulted the deceased with a knife, thrown his belongings in a nearby jungle, and disposed of his dead body and motorcycle in a river. .While the trial Court and High Court concluded that the prosecution had sufficiently proved the case against the appellant, the Supreme Court expressed serious reservations about the appellant's conviction..The Supreme Court noted that the instant case was one involving circumstantial evidence, as no one had seen the commission of the crime. While so, the bench pointed out that the prosecution had been unable to explain the motive for the alleged crime. "In a case of circumstantial evidence, motive has an important role to play. Motive may also have a role to play even in a case of direct evidence but it carries much greater importance in a case of circumstantial evidence than a case of direct evidence. It is an important link in the chain of circumstances," the Court observed..Additionally, it was also noted that the body of deceased had not been recovered. Only a limb was recovered, but no DNA testing was carried out to establish that the limb was that of the deceased, the bench further observed. .The Court further found that there were inconsistencies arising in the statements regarding whose company the deceased man was last seen before his disappearance and apparent death. The mother of the deceased had stated that she had seen the deceased last with the appellant and the accused juvenile. On the other hand, as per the sequence of events narrated by the juvenile in his extra-judicial confession, the two accused did not see the deceased man's mother at all. .The Court found that if the extra-judicial confession of appellant and juvenile were to be accepted, it would be difficult to lend any credibility to the last seen theory given by the mother."Even if we ignore the extra-judicial confession, the statement of mother appears to be an improvement only to develop the last seen theory," the Court added..Since the extra-judicial confession itself had not been corroborated and since the evidence led by the prosecution appeared to be inconsistent with the confession, the Court proceeded to acquit the appellant. "The appellant would be entitled to benefit of doubt. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed and the appellant is acquitted of all the charges," the Court held. .Advocate Madhumita Bhattacharjee appeared for the appellant. Advocate Shuvodeep Roy appeared for the respondents..[Read Judgment]