Extra-Judicial Confession Made While In Police Custody Is Inadmissible In Evidence: Supreme Court

"The High Court also found that when the extra judicial confession was allegedly made, the respondent was in physical custody of the police, though his formal arrest was shown later and hence, the extra judicial confession could not be admitted in evidence." Supreme Court underscored the stringent evidentiary requirements for extra-judicial confessions, ruling that a confession made by an accused while under the physical control of the police is inadmissible in law.

A bench of Justice Augustine George Masih and Justice Sandeep Mehta upheld the acquittal of a murder accused, observing that when the liberty of an individual is curtailed by police presence, any statement extracted or provided carries the taint of coercion, thereby nullifying its evidentiary value.

The State of Himachal Pradesh had appealed against a 2014 High Court judgment that acquitted the respondent, Sulender, of murdering his wife. The trial court had initially convicted him based on a chain of circumstantial evidence, including the theory of being "last seen together," the recovery of a weapon, and an extra-judicial confession allegedly made before two prosecution witnesses. The High Court, however, found these circumstances to be either unproven or inconsequential, leading to the acquittal which the State sought to challenge before the Apex Court.

The primary legal issue before the Court was whether the circumstantial evidence presented by the prosecution formed a complete and unbreakable chain pointing exclusively to the guilt of the accused. Additionally, the Court examined the admissibility of an extra-judicial confession provided by the accused while in the proximity of police officers prior to a formal arrest.

Court Rejects Last Seen Theory

The Supreme Court affirmed the High Court’s finding that the "last seen together" circumstance was not established. The prosecution failed to examine the material witnesses who could have testified to the movements of the couple. The Court observed that the absence of these witnesses left a critical gap in the circumstantial chain, rendering the prosecution's timeline speculative and unreliable.

Police-Monitored Confessions Devoid of Credibility

The bench took a firm stance on the extra-judicial confession, noting that the accused had made the statement while effectively in police custody. The Court held that even if the formal arrest was recorded later, the "physical custody" of the police during the interrogation of the accused destroys the voluntary nature of such a confession. The Court affirmed that such statements, made under the shadow of police authority, are inadmissible under the Indian Evidence Act.

No Absolute Presumption of Guilt

The Court further addressed the recovery of the weapon, noting that the Forensic Science Laboratory (FSL) report failed to link the blood group on the knife to the deceased. Regarding the soil stains on the accused's clothes, the judges noted that since the accused was present with the police during the discovery of the body, it was natural for him to assist in handling the remains, thereby invalidating the prosecution's claim that the stains were incriminating.

"The circumstances sought to be relied upon by the prosecution as being incriminating against the respondent were neither proved by convincing evidence nor were the said circumstances of such a nature which could form a complete incriminating chain pointing exclusively to the guilt of the respondent."

Appellate Jurisdiction in Acquittal Appeals

Reiterating established jurisprudence, the bench emphasized that in an appeal against acquittal, the appellate court must favor the view that supports the innocence of the accused. The Court stated that unless a judgment of acquittal is marked by "patent perversity," the higher court should refrain from interference. Finding no such infirmity in the High Court’s reasoning, the Supreme Court dismissed the State's appeal, confirming that the prosecution had failed to bring home the guilt of the respondent through conclusive evidence.

Date of Decision: 16 September 2026