Confession Made Inside Police Station is Inadmissible Under Section 25: Supreme Court Overturns Murder Conviction in Alleged Loan-Repayment Killing

“Mere Presence of Dead Body in Accused’s House Cannot Lead to Conviction Without Unbroken Chain of Circumstances” - Today, On September 22, 2025, the Supreme Court of India delivered a significant judgment, where it acquitted three individuals convicted for the brutal murder of a police officer allegedly over a loan repayment dispute. The Court came down strongly on the misuse of extra-judicial confessions recorded inside police stations and held that a conviction based solely on the presence of a dead body in the accused’s premises is legally untenable without solid, corroborative evidence.

Observing that “the prosecution has utterly failed to prove a complete chain of circumstances,” the Court emphasized that “Section 106 of the Evidence Act cannot be invoked unless the prosecution first discharges its burden to prove the foundational facts beyond reasonable doubt.”

A Death Over a Loan – The Case That Turned on Circumstantial Evidence

The crime, committed on the night of March 10, 2006, involved the gruesome murder of a police constable by the wife (A2), brother (A3), and brother-in-law (A4) of another police constable (A1) who allegedly owed the deceased ₹1 lakh. The deceased had allegedly been lured to the accused's home under the pretext of repayment. He was then attacked and hacked to death with choppers. His body was later discovered in the house of A1 and A2.

A2 reportedly surrendered the following morning and confessed the crime at the police station. A1, who was accused of instigating the crime, was acquitted due to a watertight alibi. However, A2 to A4 were convicted by the Sessions Court under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC, and the High Court affirmed the conviction.

“Section 25 Bars Confessions Made to Police Officers — There is No Exception”

The Court rejected outright the reliance placed on A2’s confession to the Station House Officer (SHO), noting it was made while inside the police station.

“It is trite law that no confession made to a police officer is admissible in evidence. Section 25 of the Indian Evidence Act imposes a complete embargo,” the Bench held, reiterating the principle laid down in State of U.P. v. Deoman Upadhyaya.

Even confessions made to non-police persons such as the deceased’s wife (PW-18) and a neighbour (PW-7) were inadmissible as they occurred within the police station premises. The Court clarified, “The location and context of the confession matter. Even if not made to a police officer, if done while in police custody and not in the presence of a Magistrate, Section 26 bars its admissibility.”

“Prosecution Cannot Shift Burden Under Section 106 Without Proving Foundational Facts”

The Court rejected the High Court’s reliance on the accused’s failure to explain how the dead body was found in their house. It reminded that under Indian criminal jurisprudence, the burden of proof lies on the prosecution, not the accused.

“Unless there is cogent evidence led to sustain a conviction or which makes out a prima facie case, the question does not arise of a burden being placed upon the accused,” the judgment read.

Relying on Santosh v. State (NCT of Delhi) and Shivaji Chintappa Patil v. State of Maharashtra, the Court held that the accused’s silence or inability to explain the presence of the dead body cannot substitute the prosecution’s obligation to prove guilt through reliable and corroborated evidence.

“Recovery of Weapon Based on Joint Confession is Shaky — No Forensic Link Established”

One of the few pieces of physical evidence was the recovery of a chopper allegedly used in the murder, discovered at the instance of A4. The Court, however, held that the recovery was vitiated by procedural irregularities and lacked independent credibility.

“It is not clear who made the disclosure first or whether they were simultaneous. Such simultaneous disclosures are legally problematic and practically unreliable,” the Court noted. It also pointed out that the recovery witnesses turned hostile, and the weapon had no forensic evidence linking it to the crime.

“There is no reason to treat the recovery as an inculpatory circumstance,” it concluded.

“Motive is Missing and Witnesses Are Hostile — Prosecution Story Disintegrates”

The prosecution’s attempt to establish motive through family witnesses collapsed during cross-examination. The deceased’s wife (PW-18) denied knowledge of any loan and was declared hostile. The deceased’s mother and brother claimed knowledge of the loan but were shown to have had strained relations with the accused and contradicted each other on material points.

The Court held: “We cannot find a motive in this case; of the financial transaction having led to the crime.”

The prosecution’s star eyewitnesses — PW-20 and PW-22, alleged to have witnessed the crime — denied being tenants in the accused’s house and gave no incriminating testimony. Even the inquest witnesses testified that the inquest was prepared not at the crime scene but at the hospital.

“There is a suspicion as to the genesis and origin of the crime which compounds the reasonable doubt regarding the prosecution case,” the Court observed in a critical paragraph.

“Circumstantial Evidence Must Be Unbroken and Unimpeachable — This Case Falls Short”

Underscoring the principles laid down in multiple precedents including Mohd. Inayatullah v. State of Maharashtra and Manoj Kumar Soni v. State of M.P., the Court reiterated that a case based on circumstantial evidence must form “a complete chain” which leaves “no reasonable doubt as to the guilt or otherwise of the accused.”

“The motive projected and the crime itself has not at all been proved and there is no circumstance leading to the culpability of the accused,” the Court concluded.

Conviction Set Aside — Accused Acquitted

The Supreme Court set aside the conviction and ordered the release of all accused if they were still in custody. It also cancelled and revoked the bail bonds of those on bail.

“This is not a case where the prosecution has discharged its burden to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt. The conviction cannot be sustained,” the Bench stated categorically.

Date of Decision: September 22, 2025