Extra-Judicial Confession Alone Can Support Conviction Under Section 366A IPC In The Absence Of Other Evidence: Jharkhand High Court

Jharkhand High Court, in a judgment, upheld the conviction of an appellant under Section 366A of the IPC for the kidnapping of a minor girl, noting that the judicial outcome remained sustainable despite the lack of direct eyewitness testimony. A bench of Justice Pradeep Kumar Srivastava observed that where the evidence rests primarily on an extra-judicial confession, the court may affirm the conviction if the totality of circumstances remains consistent with the finding of guilt, particularly when the victim remains untraced.

The case originated from a 2005 complaint by the father of the victim, who alleged that the appellant had enticed his minor daughter after discussing a potential marriage proposal. The informant claimed that the appellant had admitted to kidnapping the girl during a village panchayat in his home village and had promised her return, but subsequently absconded. The trial court convicted the appellant and sentenced him to five years of rigorous imprisonment, a decision challenged by the appellant on grounds of insufficient evidence.

The primary question before the court was whether a conviction under Section 366A of the IPC could be maintained solely on the basis of an alleged extra-judicial confession without independent corroboration from witnesses present at the scene of the confession. The court also considered whether the sentence should be modified in light of the advanced age of the appellant and the two decades that have elapsed since the incident.

Nature of Extra-Judicial Confession

The court analyzed the prosecution's reliance on the appellant's alleged confession made before villagers. While the appellant argued that the prosecution failed to examine any independent witnesses from the village where the confession occurred, the court found the chain of testimonies provided by the victim's family and local acquaintances sufficient to sustain the conviction. The bench emphasized that the absence of further recovery of the victim did not absolve the appellant of the offence established by the confession.

Court Upholds Conviction Based on Totality of Evidence

The court noted that although some witnesses were hearsay or turned hostile, the consistent narrative regarding the appellant's conduct and his specific admission of bringing the girl to his village provided a sufficient basis for the trial court’s finding. The court remarked that there was no compelling reason to overturn the trial court’s well-reasoned assessment of the appellant's guilt, despite the passage of time and the death of the original informant.

Proportionality in Sentencing

Regarding the quantum of punishment, the court took note of the appellant’s age, which is currently 83 years, and the fact that the case has been pending for over 20 years. The court observed that sending an elderly man back to incarceration would serve no constructive purpose. Consequently, the court exercised its discretion to modify the sentence to the period already undergone by the appellant, which amounted to over two years.

"The appellant is now aged about 83 years, therefore, further custodial sentence of the appellant is not required at this stage, as no useful purpose would be served to send the appellant again in jail."

The High Court dismissed the appeal on merits while modifying the sentence. The court ruled that the period of imprisonment already undergone by the appellant would meet the ends of justice. The appellant, who was on bail, was discharged from his bail bond obligations, and the trial court records were directed to be returned for formal compliance.

Date of Decision: 31 August 2026