Can an extra judicial confession be made the sole basis for conviction without independent and cogent corroboration?

No. An extra judicial confession is a weak piece of evidence and per se, without any independent and cogent corroborative circumstance or evidence, cannot be made the sole basis for conviction; a court intending to base a conviction on one must ensure that it inspires confidence and is corroborated by other prosecution evidence, and where it suffers from material discrepancies or inherent improbabilities the court is fully justified in ruling such evidence out of consideration. Here, PW7 deposed that the accused was brought to his shop by the police on 12.03.2007, two days before the confession was allegedly made to the Sarpanch on 14.03.2007.

Indian Penal Code, 1860 — s.302 — s.201 — s.377 — Evidence Act, 1872 — s.27 — Circumstantial evidence — Last seen together — Extra judicial confession — Disclosure statement — Benefit of doubt — Evidence Act, 1872 — Extra judicial confession — Weak piece of evidence — Corroboration essential — Held: An extra judicial confession is a weak piece of evidence and per se, without independent and cogent corroborative circumstance or evidence, cannot be made the sole basis for conviction. One suffering from material discrepancies or inherent improbabilities is ruled out of consideration. (¶43) Evidence Act, 1872 — s.27 — Disclosure statement — Identification of an area already known to the police — Held further: Section 27 admits so much of the information as relates distinctly to a fact thereby discovered. Where no incriminating article is recovered and the accused identifies an area already known to the police, no reliance can be placed on the disclosure statement. (¶38, 40) Circumstantial evidence — Last seen together — Suggestion in cross-examination cannot supply the link — Held further: A suggestion given by defense counsel in cross-examination cannot establish the factum of the deceased accompanying the accused where the witnesses omitted it in examination-in-chief; the theory of last seen is then not borne out. (¶42) Evidence Act, 1872 — Forensic report — Onus lies on the prosecution — Benefit of doubt — On facts, held: Where no DNA test links the semen on the accused's underwear with that on the rectal swab, the onus cannot be shifted to the accused to establish that there was no connection. Appeal allowed; conviction set aside on benefit of doubt. (¶45, 50)

One judgment a day. That's the whole habit.

Read the full text of Sahab Singh alias Sat Pal v. State of Haryana — and get the Supreme Court's output as a five-minute daily read, with plain-language headnotes and the questions each judgment settles.

Free forever plan · 30 seconds · data stays in India