Confession to Police Is No Confession in Law: Supreme Court Acquits Man, Citing Inadmissibility of Statements Made in Custody

Supreme Court of India overturning conviction for murder under Sections 302 and 201 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). The Court found that the entire case rested on circumstantial evidence, with the prosecution relying heavily on confessions allegedly made by the accused in police custody.

Emphasizing the inadmissibility of confessions made to the police, the Bench of Justices Abhay S. Oka and Ujjal Bhuyan ruled, "Any confession made in police custody, unless recorded before a magistrate, is inadmissible. The High Court rightly discarded this evidence. Once an essential link in the chain of circumstances is broken, the remaining evidence cannot sustain a conviction."

The prosecution had argued that the accused had confessed to multiple witnesses while in police custody. Several witnesses, including PW-5, PW-6, PW-7, PW-8, PW-10, and PW-11, testified that the appellant admitted to the crime at the police station. However, the Supreme Court categorically rejected this evidence, citing Sections 25 and 26 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, which prohibit the use of police confessions unless made before a magistrate.

Clarifying this principle, the Court observed, "Sections 25 and 26 of the Evidence Act leave no room for doubt—confessions to police officers are inadmissible. If such confessions could be relied upon, it would open the floodgates for police-induced statements leading to wrongful convictions."

The ruling reiterated the settled legal position that confessions made in the presence of police officers, even if heard by independent witnesses, lack evidentiary value unless recorded before a magistrate under Section 164 of the CrPC.

The prosecution also claimed that the accused’s statement led to the discovery of the victim’s body, attempting to invoke Section 27 of the Evidence Act. However, the Supreme Court found serious inconsistencies in this claim, particularly in the testimony of PW-6, the scribe of the FIR, who categorically stated that the accused was in jail at the time the body was discovered.

Discrediting this piece of evidence, the Court remarked, "When a prosecution witness himself states that the accused was in jail at the time of discovery, the requirement of Section 27 of the Evidence Act is not met. This directly contradicts the claim that the accused led the police to the body."

The Supreme Court also took note of serious lapses in forensic investigation, particularly the police’s failure to send a bloodstained vest allegedly recovered from the scene for forensic examination. The Court stressed that "When forensic evidence that could establish guilt is not secured or examined, the benefit of doubt must go to the accused."

The defense highlighted that the accused and the deceased were in a romantic relationship, and that the accused’s family had even assured the victim’s parents that they would arrange their marriage. Given these facts, the Supreme Court questioned the prosecution’s inability to establish any motive for the alleged murder.

Citing Anwar Ali v. State of Himachal Pradesh (2020) 10 SCC 166, the Court observed, "In a case based on circumstantial evidence, motive plays an important link to complete the chain. The absence of a clear motive weakens the prosecution’s case considerably."

Analyzing the prosecution’s failure to establish an unbroken chain of circumstantial evidence, the Court ruled: "None of the circumstances put forth by the prosecution can be said to have been proved beyond reasonable doubt. The broken chain of evidence cannot sustain a conviction."

Allowing the appeal, the Supreme Court set aside the convictions of both the Sessions Court and the Gauhati High Court, ordering that the accused be set at liberty forthwith unless his custody was required in any other case.

Conclusion: A Strong Reminder on the Inadmissibility of Police Confessions

This ruling serves as a critical reaffirmation of legal protections against forced or coerced confessions. The judgment makes it abundantly clear that:

• Confessions made in police custody are inadmissible unless recorded before a magistrate.

• A disclosure statement leading to discovery must be independently corroborated, and contradictions in witness testimony weaken its evidentiary value.

• The absence of forensic evidence, particularly when crucial exhibits are not examined, undermines the prosecution’s case.

• In cases relying on circumstantial evidence, motive plays a key role in completing the chain of circumstances.

By upholding fundamental principles of criminal law and evidentiary rules, this decision reinforces the need for rigorous standards of proof in cases based solely on circumstantial evidence.

Date of decision: 24/02/2025