Source: Jharkhand High Court 

Why in News? 

Recently, the Jharkhand High Court in the matter of Budhu Nag Chatar v. The State of Jharkhand has held that an extra judicial confession can be a basis for conviction if it is made before an impartial and independent person. 

What was the Background of the Budhu Nag Chatar v. The State of Jharkhand Case? 

• In the present case, the complaint was registered by the headman of the village. 
• He informed the Police that his co villager (Soma Purty) was missing. 
• After searching it was found out that he was last seen with his cousins (appellants), and he was not seen after that. 
• The two appellants admitted that they killed Soma Purty and also confessed that the dead body was concealed in the forest. 
• The motive of the murder was a land dispute. All the findings were handed over to the police. 
• The offence was registered under Sections 302, 201 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) against the appellants. 
• The trial court convicted and sentenced both the accused (appellants). 
• The appellants aggrieved by the decision of the Trial Court and appealed before the Jharkhand High Court. 

What were the Court’s Observations? 

• The Jharkhand High Court observed that: 
  • This is the unique case where confession was made to panchayat and not to police. 
  • It is clear by the statute that confessions made before the Police officers are not admissible evidence. 
  • The confession made by the appellants was testified by an independent witness. 
  • The recovery of dead body as per the confessions of the accused itself raises a presumption under Section 106 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (IEA) against them. 
  • Confessions made by the appellants were extra judicial confessions as it was made before the Panchayat. 
• It was held by the Jharkhand High Court that Extra Judicial confession can form the basis for conviction, if person before whom it is made, appears to be unbiased and not inimical to the accused and hence, the confession made by the appellants before the Panchayat was found reliable. 
• The Jharkhand High Court therefore dismissed the appeals of the accused and confirmed the order of the Trial Court. 

What is an Extra Judicial Confession? 

• A confession that is not made in the immediate presence of a Magistrate is an extra-judicial confession. 
• It can be voluntary statements made by the accused outside the court in reference to his guilt. 
• Such confessions are not defined under IEA and have less evidentiary value. 
• It does not have a strong stance in law because it has several possible interpretations. 
• Confessions made to family, strangers and oneself are also considered as extra-judicial confessions. 

What is the difference Between Judicial Confession and Extra Judicial Confession? 

Landmark Judgements 

• State of Maharashtra v. Damu (2000):  
  • The Supreme Court in this has held that Section 27 of IEA is based on Doctrine of Confirmation by virtue of subsequent events.  
  • It is held that if any fact is discovered on the basis of information received by the accused, then such a discovery is a guarantee that the information supplied by the accused is true. 
• Shiva Karam Payaswami Tewar v. State of Maharashtra (2009): 
  • In this case it was held that extra Judicial confession can form the basis for conviction, if person before whom it is made, appears to be unbiased and not inimical to the accused 
• Amar Nath Shukla v. State of Uttaranchal (2009): 
  • In this case an extra judicial confession made by the accused before the Administrative Officer of the village was found reliable and acted upon.