Confession Made to a Son Torn Between Grief and Loyalty Is Not Untrustworthy: Delhi High Court Upholds Extra-Judicial Admission

“A 20-Year-Old Who Has Just Lost His Father Can’t Be Expected to Instantly Accuse His Brother-in-Law” - In a significant reaffirmation of the evidentiary value of extra-judicial confessions, the Delhi High Court on 12 November 2025, held that a confession made by an accused to a close family member—even if disclosed after some delay—does not become unreliable merely because of that delay, especially when explained by credible emotional and familial reasons.

The Division Bench of Justice Dinesh Mehta and Justice Vimal Kumar Yadav upheld the extra-judicial confession made by appellant Ram Avtar (accused of strangling his father-in-law) to Mahendra (PW-9), who was not only the son of the deceased but also the accused’s brother-in-law.

Rejecting the defence’s challenge that Mahendra had not mentioned the confession in his initial statement under Section 161 CrPC, the Court found his explanation for the delayed disclosure both natural and humanly understandable.

“His stand which is quite natural and plausible has remained unimpeached during the course of cross-examination,” the Court noted [Para 33], while affirming that such emotional complexity did not render the confession inadmissible.

Delayed Disclosure Did Not Erode Credibility: “He Was Trying to Protect His Sister”

The Court took a nuanced view of the family dynamics at play. Mahendra had explained in his testimony that he was in a conflicted emotional state—his father was dead, and the man responsible was his sister’s husband. Under these circumstances, the Court said, silence or hesitation cannot be treated as falsehood.

“Faced with such circumstances, a person of 20 years of age, who had already lost his mother and father, would at the first place try to save his brother-in-law, despite the heinous crime he had committed,” observed the Court [Para 22].

The Court further noted that Mahendra did disclose the confession later, after the post-mortem confirmed strangulation, and that his testimony in court was clear, consistent, and not shaken during cross-examination.

“Extra-Judicial Confession Is Still a Valuable Piece of Evidence”: Court Affirms Legal Standing

Significantly, the Court held that extra-judicial confessions, especially those supported by surrounding corroborative circumstances, can form the basis of conviction.

In this case, the confession was not an isolated piece of evidence. It was corroborated by the ‘last seen’ account provided by multiple witnesses—including PW-1 Mani Ram, PW-2 Mahabir, and PW-3 Vijay—all of whom confirmed that the deceased and the accused were together on the night of the incident, drinking and listening to music.

The Court, therefore, concluded that:

“The circumstance of extra-judicial confession has also been aptly and sufficiently proved by the prosecution.” [Para 34]

Defence Argument on Initial Silence Rejected: “Human Response Is Not Always Legally Timed”

The appellant’s counsel had argued that Mahendra’s initial silence and the fact that his Section 161 CrPC statement made no mention of the confession, rendered his later claim fabricated. However, the Court rejected this contention outright, pointing out that:

“It was only after the post-mortem was done (24.09.2001), when the doctors reported that the deceased died of strangulation, PW-9 felt that they had to unravel the truth… He therefore gave supplementary statement on 25.09.2001 and informed the IO that the accused had made a confession.” [Para 33]

The Bench emphasised that emotional hesitation, especially within family structures, cannot be judged on the strict timelines of criminal law.

Family Ties Do Not Invalidate Truth—Confession Upheld as Credible and Legally Admissible

The Delhi High Court’s observations in Ram Avtar v. State mark an important reaffirmation that extra-judicial confessions made to relatives can be credible, especially when human factors like trauma, loyalty, and fear are at play and properly explained. It sets a reminder that legal truth often unfolds within personal complexities, and justice must make room for real human behaviour.

By holding that the confession remained unimpeached and coherent, and by differentiating between delay and deceit, the Court validated Mahendra’s role not as a reluctant accuser, but as a young man caught in a moral and emotional dilemma—and ultimately, a credible witness.