Introduction 

• This is a landmark judgment relating to the evidentiary value of extra judicial confession. 
• The Judgment was delivered by a 2- judge consisting of Justice Swatanter Kumar and Justice AK Patnaik.  

Facts 

• Smt. Kamalal (PW-2) was married to the deceased, Yoganandan @ Loganathan. 
• Kamalal’s brother, accused No.1, Chandran, believed that murdering Loganathan would improve his sister’s life, as she was being ill-treated by her husband. 
• Chandran conspired with accused No.2, Sahadevan, and accused No.3, Arul Murugan, to kill Loganathan. 
• On 9th July 2002, at around 10 p.m., PW-5, Karuppuswamy, saw accused No.2, Sahadevan, riding a TVS moped with two pillion riders. 
• Later, at about 2 p.m., PW-4 saw Loganathan and accused No.1 riding in the same direction on the moped, after which accused No.2 returned alone. 
• On 10th July 2002, at around 8:30 a.m., PW-3, Rajendran, discovered a dead body on Pommanayakkanpallam Road and informed PW-1, the Administrative Officer, who then reported it to the Perumanallur Police Station. 
• The police registered First Information Report under Section 302 IPC against unknown persons. The Investigating Officer (PW-9) visited the scene, prepared an observation Mahazar (Ext.P-2), and took photographs of the body. 
• The Senior Civil Assistant Surgeon (PW-7) conducted an autopsy and issued a report (Ext.P-10), concluding that Loganathan had died 27 to 28 hours before the post-mortem. 
• On 14th July 2002, all three accused went to PW-6, Muthurathinam, and confessed to murdering Loganathan by strangulation and setting his body on fire with kerosene. PW-6 documented their confession and handed it over to the police along with the accused. 
• Based on the confessional statement of the accused the police recovered the TVS moped, a bottle smelling of kerosene (MO-7), and a matchbox (MO-8). These items were sent for forensic examination. 
• PW-9 and PW-10 completed the investigation and filed a chargesheet under Sections 120B and 302 Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC). 
• During their statement under Section 313 Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (CrPC), the accused denied involvement and the alleged extra-judicial confession but did not present any defense. 
• The trial court acquitted them of the conspiracy charge under Section 120B IPC but convicted them under Section 302 IPC, sentencing them to life imprisonment and a fine of ₹5,000, with a six-month rigorous imprisonment in case of default. 
• The accused appealed to the High Court, which dismissed their appeal on 27th September 2006. 
• Dissatisfied with the High Court's decision, the accused filed the present appeal before the Supreme Court. 

Issues Involved

• Whether the accused is liable for the offence of murder under Section 302 of IPC owing to the circumstantial evidence i.e. extra judicial confession? 

Observation  

• In the present facts there were no eyewitnesses hence the whole case hinged on circumstantial evidence. 
• Regarding extra judicial confession the Court held: 
  • The Court has to examine extra judicial confession with a greater degree of care and caution. 
  • It is a settled principle of criminal jurisprudence that extra-judicial confession is a weak piece of evidence. 
• The Court further laid down following principles on extra judicial confession: 
  • The extra-judicial confession is weak evidence by itself. It has to be examined by the court with greater care and caution.  
  • It should be made voluntarily and should be truthful. iii) It should inspire confidence. 
  •  An extra-judicial confession attains greater credibility and evidentiary value, if it is supported by a chain of cogent circumstances and is further corroborated by other prosecution evidence.  
  • For an extra-judicial confession to be the basis of conviction, it should not suffer from any material discrepancies and inherent improbabilities.  
  • Such a statement essentially has to be proved like any other fact and in accordance with law. 
• In this case the prosecution also relied on last seen theory to support it’s case. 
• The Court held that it is well settled that the only circumstance of last seen will not complete the chain of circumstances to record a finding that it is consistent only with the hypothesis of guilt of the accused and, therefore, no conviction, on that basis alone, can be founded. 
• Thus, the Court held that circumstantial evidences are not such that they point only to the guilt of the accused. 
• Hence, the Court acquitted the accused persons in this case. 

Conclusion 

• Extra judicial confessions is one of the circumstantial evidences that finds place in the chain in circumstantial evidences. 
• This is the landmark judgment which lays down principles on extra judicial confession.