Constitution  of India, Article 20(3) - Confessional statement  - Self­incriminatory evi-dence - Recovery of material objects  - Once a confessional statement of the accused on facts is found to be involuntary, it is hit by Article 20(3) of the Constitution, rendering such a confession inadmissible - There is an embargo on accepting self­incriminatory evidence, but if it leads to the recovery of material objects in relation to a crime, it is most often taken to hold evidentiary value as per the circumstances of each case - However, if such a statement is made under undue pressure and compulsion from the investigating officer, the evidentiary value of such a statement leading to the recovery is nullified -  Recovery of in-criminating material at the instance of the accused – Confessions  - Investigating Officer de-posed that all the confessions by the accused persons were made after interrogation, but the mode of this interrogation does not appear to be of normal character, inasmuch as he himself has deposed that the accused persons were further grilled and interrogated multiple times before extracting the confessions which lead to the recovery of the ornaments, cash, weapons and key -  We find the confessions that led to the recovery of the incriminating material were not voluntary, but caused by inducement, pressure or coercion  - Recovery of the stolen ornaments, etc. in the instant matter was made on the basis of involuntary statements, which effectively negates the incriminating circumstance based on such recov-ery, and severely undermines the prosecution case - Evidence Act, Section 27.. 2019 SCeJ 89

Confession  - It is well settled that conviction can be based on a voluntarily confession but the rule of prudence requires that wherever possible it should be corroborated by independent evidence - Extra-judicial confession of accused need not in all cases be corroborated - Law does not require that the evidence of an extra-judicial confession should in all cases be corroborated -  The rule of prudence does not require that each and every circumstance mentioned in the confession with regard to the participation of the accused must be separately and independently corroborated - If the court is satisfied that if the confession is voluntary, the conviction can be based upon the same.(2018)2 SCeJ 1465


Confession  - Threat or inducement  - Mere allegation of threat or inducement is not enough; in the court’s opinion, such inducement must be sufficient to cause a reasonable belief in the mind of the accused that by so confessing, he would get an advantage -  Though the confession statement has been initially made in the presence PW-2, 3 no question was put to PW-3 that extrajudicial confession was an outcome of any threat, inducement or allurement - The statement which runs to eleven sheets has been held to be made by the appellant voluntarily - Likewise, confession statement made before PW-2 was in the handwriting of the appellant made in the presence of PW-2 and the then Assistant Chief Officer (Inspection) - Held that the confession statements were voluntarily made and that the same can form the basis for conviction. Held, Accused a peon, was assigned the job of the Clerk as there was a shortage of clerical staff in the bank and his job was of manning Saving Bank accounts counter. His job was to receive money from the account holders for deposit in Saving Bank accounts. He used to make entries in their pass books in his own hand but would not account money in the account books of the bank nor did he pass it to the cashier. Accused filled the pay-in-slips but no deposit made in the scroll, daily case receipt book and the cash payment book maintained by the cashier and he used to pocket that money. When the depositors approached him for withdrawals of money, he would make fake credit entries in the ledger accounts and fill in the withdrawal slips and submit the same to the officer concerned for payment. The Passing Officer misled by the fake credit entry would allow the withdrawals.  In the case at hand, PW-2 and PW-3  were the senior officers of the bank and when they reached the bank for inspection, the accused submitted his confessional statement. Likewise, in the enquiry conducted by PW-3, the accused had given confession statement.  Contention that PWs 2 and 3 being the higher officials, it cannot be said that the confession statement of the accused has been made voluntarily and it must have been under the inducement or under false promise of favour. The trial court as well as the High Court concurrently held that the confession statements (Ex.-PW-3/A and PW-2/A) were voluntarily made and that the same can form the basis for conviction. We do not find any good ground warranting interference with the said concurrent findings. (2018)2 SCeJ 1465

PLR Supreme Court e@journal

 Annual subscription Rs. 1000/-


Full text with Headnotes through

email / WhatsApp


FREE with


 Annual subscription Rs. 2400/ / 9463598502