Extra-Judicial Confession Is A Weak Piece Of Evidence, Cannot Be Sole Basis For Conviction Without Independent Corroboration: Gujarat 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... it should be made voluntarily and should be truthful." Gujarat High Court, in an authoritative ruling, has affirmed the acquittal of an accused charged with the murder of his grandfather, holding that an extra-judicial confession is a weak piece of evidence that cannot sustain a conviction without independent corroboration.

A Division Bench of Justice S.V. Pinto and Justice P. M. Raval observed that such confessions must pass the test of credibility and inspire the court’s confidence before being acted upon. The court emphasized that the presumption of innocence is further strengthened when a trial court records an acquittal, requiring "compelling and substantial reasons" for an appellate court to interfere.

The prosecution alleged that the respondent, Jagdish Hirabhai Malam, strangulated his grandfather and struck him with a stone over a dispute regarding the sale of ancestral land and the mutation of revenue records. The State filed an appeal against the January 1, 2000, judgment of the Additional Sessions Judge, Veraval, which had acquitted the accused of charges under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code. The State’s case rested primarily on the testimony of three witnesses to whom the accused had allegedly made successive extra-judicial confessions.

The primary question before the court was whether the extra-judicial confessions allegedly made by the accused were voluntary, truthful, and reliable enough to form the sole basis for a conviction. The court was also called upon to determine whether the trial court’s order of acquittal was perverse or suffered from a manifest illegality that warranted interference under Section 378 of the CrPC.

Double Presumption Of Innocence In Acquittal Appeals

The Court began by reviewing the settled principles governing appeals against acquittal, noting that an appellate court must be cautious as the trial court's verdict reinforces the initial presumption of innocence. Citing the Supreme Court's decision in Rajesh Prasad v. State of Bihar, the Bench noted that if two reasonable views are possible based on the evidence, the one favoring the accused must be adopted. The court underscored that findings of a trial court should not be disturbed unless they are "palpably wrong, manifestly erroneous, or demonstrably unsustainable."

"The golden thread which runs through the web of administration of justice in criminal cases is that if two views are possible on the evidence adduced... the view, which is in favour of the accused, should be adopted."

Extra-Judicial Confession As A Weak Category Of Evidence

In analyzing the core of the prosecution's case, the Bench referred to the principles laid down in Sahadevan & Anr. v. State of Tamil Nadu, characterizing extra-judicial confessions as a "weak type of evidence." The court observed that such statements require a high degree of care and caution during judicial appreciation. To be the basis of a conviction, the court must be satisfied that the confession was made in a fit state of mind, was voluntary, and is free from material discrepancies or inherent improbabilities.

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

Improbability Of Confession To Strangers

The Court found it "inherently improbable" that the accused would voluntarily confess to the murder of his grandfather and grandmother before witnesses with whom he shared no relationship of confidence or intimacy. The Bench pointed out that the prosecution witnesses (PW3, PW4, and PW5) belonged to different communities and had categorically admitted they were not close acquaintances of the accused. The court remarked that there was no apparent reason for the accused to choose these specific individuals as recipients of such a grave confession.

Court Questions Naturalness Of Successive Confessions

The Bench further critiqued the prosecution's narrative regarding the sequence of the alleged confessions. The witnesses claimed the accused confessed to different people at different locations on the same day, a sequence the court described as "unnatural." The court noted that such repetitive and successive disclosures do not inspire confidence, especially when they lack independent corroboration that could lend assurance to the truthfulness of the statements.

"The sequence narrated by the witnesses, namely, the accused successively confessing before different persons at different places on the same day, also appears unnatural and does not inspire confidence."

Failure To Establish A Cogent Chain Of Circumstances

Upon a re-appreciation of the medical evidence, the court noted that the Medical Officer (PW1) found only one external injury and could not definitively confirm strangulation, as the voice box and neck bones were intact. The Bench concluded that the prosecution failed to establish a chain of cogent circumstances to support the alleged extra-judicial confession. Since the confession was neither "wholly reliable" nor of "sterling quality," it could not constitute the sole foundation for a conviction.

The High Court concluded that the trial court had meticulously appreciated the evidence and reached a plausible, well-reasoned conclusion. Finding no perversity or misappreciation of evidence, the Bench affirmed the acquittal and dismissed the State's appeal. The court ordered the cancellation of the bail bond and directed that the record and proceedings be returned to the trial court.

Date of Decision: 03 July 2026