Conviction Cannot Be Based Solely On Hostile Witness Testimony And Extra-Judicial Confession Without Reliable Corroboration: Allahabad High Court

"The extra-judicial confession is a weak evidence by itself. It has to be examined by the court with greater care and caution." The Allahabad High Court, in a judgment delivered on September 22, 2026, held that a conviction cannot be sustained solely on the basis of a hostile witness's examination-in-chief or an uncorroborated extra-judicial confession.

A division bench comprising Justice Siddhartha Varma and Justice Jai Krishna Upadhyay observed that while there is no absolute legal bar to relying on the testimony of a hostile witness, such evidence must be supported by independent and trustworthy corroboration to inspire judicial confidence.

The appellant, Surendra, had challenged his conviction under Sections 302 and 201 of the IPC, which was recorded by the Special Judge (SC/ST Act), Mathura, in 2019. The prosecution’s case rested primarily on an alleged extra-judicial confession made by the accused to his wife, PW-1, and the subsequent recovery of a minor’s body from a well. However, during the trial, the informant (PW-1) and all other prosecution witnesses turned hostile, contradicting the prosecution's narrative in their cross-examinations.

The court was primarily tasked with determining whether the trial court erred in convicting the appellant based solely on the examination-in-chief of a witness who had turned hostile. Furthermore, the court examined whether an extra-judicial confession, in the absence of cogent corroborating evidence, could legally sustain a sentence of life imprisonment.

Court Explains Requirement Of Corroboration

The bench noted that while the law does not render the testimony of a hostile witness entirely useless, it cannot be accepted blindly. Relying on the precedent in Neeraj Dutta vs. State (Govt. of N.C.T. of Delhi), the court clarified that evidence from a hostile witness is only admissible if it is supported by other reliable facts on record. In the instant case, the trial court had incorrectly relied upon the informant’s initial statement while completely ignoring her retraction in cross-examination, where she denied the occurrence and alleged that her signatures were obtained on blank papers.

Caution Regarding Extra-Judicial Confessions

The court underscored that an extra-judicial confession is a "weak piece of evidence" that must be scrutinized with extreme caution. Citing the principles laid down in Sahadevan vs. State of T.N., the bench reiterated that for such a confession to form the basis of a conviction, it must be voluntary, truthful, and corroborated by a chain of cogent circumstances. Because the prosecution failed to provide any independent evidence to link the appellant to the crime, the court found the alleged confession to be inherently improbable and legally insufficient.

"The extra-judicial confession is a weak evidence by itself. It has to be examined by the court with greater care and caution."

Absence Of Substantive Evidence

The bench observed that the trial court’s reliance on the extra-judicial confession was misplaced, as it lacked the necessary independent corroboration to overcome the shadow of doubt cast by the witnesses turning hostile. The court noted that because the informant explicitly stated in her cross-examination that the appellant never confessed to the crime and that she was unaware of the contents of the FIR, the entire prosecution story collapsed. Consequently, the court held that the prosecution failed to establish the charges beyond a reasonable doubt.

Concluding that the findings of the trial court were perverse and unsustainable, the High Court set aside the judgment and order of conviction. The court allowed the appeal, acquitted the appellant of all charges, and directed his immediate release from custody, provided he is not required in any other case.

Date of Decision: 22 September 2026