Whether Extra judicial confession made to stranger can be relied on/

Delhi High Court: Relying on the Supreme Court judgment in Kishore Chand v. State of H.P., (1991) 1 SCC 286, the Court held that an unambiguous extrajudicial confession possesses high probative value as it emanates from the person who committed the crime and it is admissible in evidence provided it is free from suspicion and suggestion of any falsity. However, before relying on the alleged confession, the Court has to be satisfied that it is voluntary and not the result of inducement, threat or promise envisaged under Section 24 of the Evidence Act, 1872 or was brought about in suspicious circumstances to circumvent Sections 25 and 26 of the Evidence Act. The Court suggested that it is important to look into the surrounding circumstances to find out as to whether such confession is not inspired by any improper or collateral consideration or circumvention of law suggesting that it may not be true. All relevant circumstances such as the person to whom the confession is made, the time and place of making it, the circumstances in which it was made have to be scrutinized.

In the present case the appellant had disclosed to a driver that he had killed his wife, her dead body was lying at his house and he wanted to dispose it off for which he offered the driver a sum of Rs.300 as hire charges. The Court held that an extra-judicial confession had been made by the appellant to the driver and it was followed by the recovery of the dead body from his house and merely because an extra-judicial confession has been made before a stranger, it would not be sufficient to hold that it has not been proved. Convicting the appellant the Court held that the extra-judicial confession made by the appellant to the driver and the version of the driver being firm and stout on all grounds stands proved. Since the confession was not obtained by coercion, promise of favor or false hope and is plenary in character and voluntary in nature it can be made the basis for conviction even without corroboration.
[Radhey Shyam v. State,CRL.A. 1375 of 2010, decided on November 6, 2013]