Confession Must Be Direct Acknowledgment of Guilt, Not Mere Presence at Scene: Supreme Court Slams Misuse of Section 164 CrPC

“Exculpatory Statements Cannot Be Treated as Confessions; Corroboration Mandatory for Conviction” –  In a sharply worded judgment that underscores the limited evidentiary value of retracted and exculpatory confessions, the Supreme Court on January 27, 2026, ruled that neither the accused’s presence at the scene nor vague admissions can substitute for a legally valid confession under Section 164 CrPC. Reversing the Meghalaya High Court’s conviction based primarily on such statements, the apex court reaffirmed that a confession must be a clear and complete acknowledgment of guilt to have legal force.

“A confession has to be a direct acknowledgment of guilt of the offence in question and such as would be sufficient by itself for conviction. If it falls short of such a plenary acknowledgment of guilt, it would not be a confession,” the Court observed, quoting its earlier decision in Kanda Pandyachi v. State of Tamil Nadu.

The judgment exposes serious procedural violations in how the confessional statements of both accused were recorded, pointing to irregularities that struck at the root of voluntariness, reliability, and admissibility.

“Right to Legal Assistance Is Not a Ritual – It Is a Safeguard Under Article 21”: Apex Court Raps Magistrate for Not Informing Accused of Their Rights

The Bench of Justice K. Vinod Chandran and Justice Sanjay Kumar expressed grave concern that when the accused were produced before the Magistrate for recording confessions under Section 164 CrPC, they were never informed of their right to consult or be defended by a legal practitioner, as guaranteed under Articles 21 and 22(1) of the Constitution.

“This right flows from the Constitution and is not merely a procedural formality. Any failure to faithfully discharge this obligation amounts to dereliction of duty and can render the confession inadmissible,” the Court stressed, citing the authoritative ruling in Mohammed Ajmal Kasab v. State of Maharashtra.

Notably, PW32, the Magistrate who recorded the confessions, failed to explain why Accused No. 2’s signature was dated a day prior to the Magistrate’s own signature, and why the language of the confession recorded as “Khasi” was in fact entirely in English. These glaring contradictions “only enhance the suspicion that the statements were either dictated or manipulated,” the Court held.

“Confession That Merely Accuses Co-Accused Cannot Be Used for Conviction”: Court Labels A1’s Statement as Purely Exculpatory

The Supreme Court came down heavily on the High Court’s reliance on the confession of Accused No. 1 (A1), which claimed that he saw Accused No. 2 (A2) strangulate the deceased while he had stepped out to buy a cigarette, and that he tried to revive the deceased by rubbing his feet.

“Such a statement, while placing A1 at the scene, clearly seeks to absolve him of guilt and shifts the blame to the co-accused. This cannot be treated as a confession under the law,” the Court categorically ruled. The confession was deemed exculpatory, and hence inadmissible against A2, especially in the absence of independent corroboration.

Similarly, the statement of A2, which vaguely claimed that the deceased died while in his lap, was held to fall short of a legal confession, as there was no admission of any criminal act or intent.

“Courts Cannot Stretch Vague Statements into Convictions”: Supreme Court Reiterates that Confessions Alone Are Insufficient Without Corroboration

The Supreme Court also reaffirmed its settled position that a confession cannot be the sole basis for conviction unless it is voluntary, reliable, and corroborated by other evidence. The judgment referred to Pyarelal Bhargava v. State of Rajasthan, reiterating that partial or retracted statements require independent confirmation of material facts.

“In the instant case there is no such acknowledgment of the crime proper nor is there any shred of evidence to establish the various circumstances put forth by the prosecution,” the Court held.

Significantly, the Court pointed out that the High Court had treated the so-called confessions as the “admission of guilt” and used them to overcome deficiencies in the prosecution case—including the failure of the last seen theory, absence of motive, and inconclusive forensic evidence—which was legally impermissible.

“Voluntariness, Procedural Compliance, and Substantive Content – All Are Essential for a Confession to Be Legally Valid”

The Court concluded that both confessions failed all three tests: they were procedurally flawed, lacking in legal counsel, factually ambiguous, and not corroborated by any solid evidence. The Trial Court had rightly rejected them, and the High Court fell into error by treating them as conclusive proof of guilt.

“Neither the content of the confessions nor the manner in which they were recorded meets the constitutional or evidentiary standards required to sustain a conviction under criminal law,” the Court observed.

Conviction Based on Flawed Confessions Cannot Stand, Acquittal Restored

Accordingly, the Supreme Court allowed the appeals, restored the Trial Court’s acquittal, and directed that the accused be released forthwith if not required in any other case.

The ruling serves as a strong reminder to all trial and appellate courts that confessions—especially when retracted or exculpatory—must be scrutinised with the utmost care, and that constitutional safeguards are not optional add-ons but the bedrock of criminal justice.

Date of Decision: 27 January 2026