Law Web: Leading Supreme Court Judgment on extra judicial confession

Extra-judicial confession is a weak piece of evidence and the

court must ensure that the same inspires confidence and is

corroborated by other prosecution evidence. In order to accept

extra-judicial confession, it must be voluntary and must inspire

confidence. If the court is satisfied that the extra-judicial confession

is voluntary, it can be acted upon to base the conviction.

Considering the admissibility and evidentiary value of extra-judicial

confession, after referring to various judgments, in Sahadevan and

Another v. State of Tamil Nadu (2012) 6 SCC 403, this court held

as under:-

“15.1. In Balwinder Singh v. State of Punjab 1995 Supp (4) SCC

259 this Court stated the principle that:

“10. An extra-judicial confession by its very nature is

rather a weak type of evidence and requires

appreciation with a great deal of care and caution.

Where an extra-judicial confession is surrounded by

suspicious circumstances, its credibility becomes

doubtful and it loses its importance.”

15.4. While explaining the dimensions of the principles governing

the admissibility and evidentiary value of an extra-judicial

confession, this Court in State of Rajasthan v. Raja Ram (2003) 8

SCC 180 stated the principle that:

“19. An extra-judicial confession, if voluntary and true and

made in a fit state of mind, can be relied upon by the court.

The confession will have to be proved like any other fact.

The value of the evidence as to confession, like any other

evidence, depends upon the veracity of the witness to whom
it has been made.”

The Court further expressed the view that:

“19. … Such a confession can be relied upon and conviction

can be founded thereon if the evidence about the confession

comes from the mouth of witnesses who appear to be

unbiased, not even remotely inimical to the accused, and in

respect of whom nothing is brought out which may tend to

indicate that he may have a motive of attributing an

untruthful statement to the accused.…”

15.6. Accepting the admissibility of the extra-judicial confession, the

Court in Sansar Chand v. State of Rajasthan (2010) 10 SCC 604

held that:

“29. There is no absolute rule that an extra-judicial

confession can never be the basis of a conviction, although
ordinarily an extra-judicial confession should be corroborated

by some other material. [Vide Thimma and Thimma Raju v.

State of Mysore (1970) 2 SCC 105, Mulk Raj v. State of U.P.

AIR 1959 SC 902, Sivakumar v. State By Inspector of Police

(2006) 1 SCC 714 (SCC paras 40 and 41 : AIR paras 41

and 42), Shiva Karam Payaswami Tewari v. State of

Maharashtra (2009) 11 SCC 262 and Mohd. Azad alias

Shamin v. State of W.B. (2008) 15 SCC 449]”

14. 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. In

Madan Gopal Kakkad v. Naval Dubey and Another (1992) 3 SCC

204, this court after referring to Piara Singh and Others v. State of

Punjab (1977) 4 SCC 452 held that the 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 must be separately and independently corroborated.

15. As discussed above, if the court is satisfied that if the

confession is voluntary, the conviction can be based upon the same.

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. In the case at hand, as pointed out by the trial court

as well as by the High Court, R.K. Soni (PW-2) and R.C. Chhabra

(PW-3) were the senior officers of the bank and when they reached

the bank for inspection on 23.04.1994, the accused submitted his

confessional statement (Ex.-PW-2/A). Likewise, in the enquiry

conducted by R.C. Chhabra (PW-3), the accused had given

confession statement (Ex.-PW-3/A).

16. Contention of the appellant is 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. 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. As pointed out by the trial court and the High

Court, though the confession statement has been initially made in

the presence of R.C. Chhabra (PW-3) and M.P. Sethi by the

appellant, no question was put to R.C. Chhabra (PW-3) that extrajudicial

confession (Ex.-PW3/A) 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 (Ex.-PW-2/A) made before R.K.

Soni (PW-2) was in the handwriting of the appellant made in the

presence of R.K. Soni (PW-2) and H.O. Agrawal, the then Assistant Chief Officer (Inspection). Here again, it was not suggested to R.K. Soni (PW-2) that Ex.-PW-2/A was outcome of some threat or

pressure. 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.

REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.576 OF 2010

RAM LAL Vs STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH

R. BANUMATHI, J.

Dated: October 03, 2018.

Citation: AIR 2018 SC 4616

These appeals arise out of the judgment dated 22.12.2008

passed by the High Court of Himachal Pradesh at Shimla in

Criminal Appeal Nos. 710-712 of 2000 in and by which the High

Court affirmed the judgment passed by the trial court thereby

affirming the conviction of the appellant under Section 13(1)(C) read

with Section 13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and under

Sections 409 and 477-A IPC and the sentence of imprisonment

imposed upon him.

2. Briefly stated case of the prosecution is that accused was

employed as a Peon in the United Commercial Bank in January

1987. He 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. It is alleged that neither the appellant filled the payin-

slips nor was any 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. This way, the

appellant caused wrongful loss to the bank to the tune of

Rs.38,500/- during the year 1994. When the fraud came to light, a

Committee of two officers namely, R.C. Chhabra (PW-3) and M.P.

Sethi was deputed to hold a preliminary enquiry and the Committee

noticed bungling of accounts by the appellant. After that, Enquiry

Committee recommended thorough investigation in the matter. After

the preliminary enquiry, FIR was registered against the appellant

under Sections 409, 468, 471, 477-A IPC and under Section 13(1)

1988 (PC Act, 1988). After investigation, the appellant was charge

sheeted for the said offences.

3. To prove the guilt of the accused, prosecution has examined

thirteen witnesses and produced documentary evidence. Upon

consideration of the oral and documentary evidence, the trial court

held that the appellant in his capacity as a public servant, had

misappropriated the money entrusted to him, in discharge of his

duty, as a public servant. The trial court convicted him for the

offences under Section 13(1)(c) read with Section 13(2) of the PC

Act, 1988 and Section 477-A IPC for falsification of accounts with

intent to defraud the Bank and he was sentenced to undergo

rigorous imprisonment for a period of two years along with a fine of

Rs.5,000/. For the offence under Section 409 IPC, the appellant

was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of five

years with a fine of Rs.5,000/- and all the sentences were directed

to run concurrently. The appellant was, however, acquitted for the

offences under Sections 468 and 471 IPC for the charge of forgery

by holding that the opinion expert is not precise. Being aggrieved

by the conviction, the appellant preferred the appeal before the High

Court which was dismissed by the impugned judgment.

4. Learned counsel for the appellant contended that the

appellant was working as Peon in the bank and as per bank rules,

no clerical job can be assigned to Peon/sub-staff which was

admitted by the officers of the bank viz. Prem Chand (PW-1), R.K.

Soni (PW-2), R.C. Chhabra (PW-3) and A.K. Gupta (PW-10). It was

contended that when any particular job is assigned to an employee

different from his duty, then the Manager is supposed to issue office

order/duty sheet whereas in the present case, no office order/duty

sheet was placed on record to establish that the appellant was

assigned the clerical job as alleged. The appellant mainly assails

the confessional statement contending that he did not voluntarily

make any confession statement and the confessional statement

could not have been made the basis for conviction.

5. Learned counsel for the State contended that the appellant

acted with dishonest intention to defraud the Bank by making false

credit and debit entries in the accounts of various account holders

thereby falsifying the account books of the Bank and the courts

below rightly convicted the appellant for defrauding the Bank and

the impugned judgment warrants no interference.

6. We have carefully considered the rival contentions and

perused the impugned judgment and evidence and materials placed

on record.

7. In his evidence, A.K. Gupta (PW-10), the then Manager of

UCO Bank, Nerwa Branch had stated that the appellant who was a

Peon in the branch was performing the duties of Cash Clerk for

shortage of staff. He further stated that while the appellant was so

working as Cash Clerk, the appellant used to receive cash from the

depositors for depositing the same in their Saving Bank accounts

and used to make the entries in the Cash Book then and there and

return the pass book to the customers by pocketing the cash so

given to him without making any credit entry in the ledger. A.K.

Gupta (PW-10) further stated that generally the pay-in-slip is filled in

by the depositor himself; but in order to pocket the money,

appellant-Ram Lal filled up the pay-in-slip. PW-10 further stated that

subsequently, when the depositors used to visit the Bank for

withdrawal of the cash from their Saving Bank accounts, appellant-

Ram Lal used to make false credit entries in the ledger books and

after making the debit entries in their accounts, he used to hand

over the cash to the customers.

8. The duty of the Peon was, of course, only to clean up the

office and other work in the office like moving files etc. There was, of

course, no office order in writing authorising the appellant to perform

the duties of Clerical Cadre. But in his evidence, A.K. Gupta (PW-

10) has stated that though there was no office order authorising the

appellant to perform the work of Clerical Cadre, he informed the

Head Office regarding the appellant for performing the duties of

Cash Clerk for want of shortage of the staff. In this regard, in his

evidence, R.C. Chhabra (PW-3), the then Deputy Chief Officer of

UCO Bank has stated that the Peon like appellant was not

authorised to do the work of Clerical Cadre. PW-3 has also stated

that A.K. Gupta (PW-10) and other officials of Nerwa Branch namely

S.S. Rana, B.S. Guleria were negligent in their duties by so

assigning the clerical work to the appellant. PW-3 was however

quick enough to add that it cannot be said that those officers (A.K.

Gupta (PW-10), S.S. Rana (PW-11) and B.S. Guleria) were

responsible for the act of committing fraud. There is no merit in the

contention of the appellant that in the absence of office order

authorising him to perform the clerical work, he cannot be held

responsible.

9. R.C. Chhabra (PW-3) was the then Deputy Chief Officer of

UCO Bank, Divisional Office, Shimla who inspected UCO Bank,

Nerwa Branch during the relevant time. R.K. Soni (PW-2) was the

Grade-I Officer at Zonal Office, Shimla who also inspected UCO

Bank, Nerwa Branch in the year 1994. R.C. Chhabra (PW-3) stated

that the appellant wrote confession statement in his own hand, in

the presence of M.P. Sethi and signed the same which formed part

of his report Ex.-PW-3/A. Eleven sheets are the tabulated

statements in respect of the Saving Bank accounts, in which fake

credit entries had been detected. At the foot of these statements,

the appellant wrote in his own hand and under his signature, that he

had received the money from the account holders, named in the

statements, for being deposited in their accounts, but instead of

accounting for the same in the respective account books of the

bank, the appellant misappropriated it and later on made fake credit

entries and forged the initials of the Manager.

10. After the preliminary enquiry was conducted, the Divisional

Office nominated two senior officers namely, R.K. Soni (PW-2) and

H.O. Aggarwal, who submitted the report consisting of 202 pages,

which has been made part of the investigation report, Ex.-PW-2/A.

R.K. Soni (PW-2) deposed in his evidence that the writings at pages

(143) and (144) of report Ex.-PW-2/A, was prepared by the

appellant-accused voluntarily in his own handwriting, in his

presence and in the presence of his co-investigator H.O. Aggarwal

and the appellant-accused admitted having received money from

various account holders, for being deposited in their Saving Bank

accounts and having made entries in their pass books. In his

confession statement, the appellant also admitted that he did not

account for the money, but misappropriated the same and that when

the account holder visited the bank for the withdrawal of the money,

he used to make fake credit entries in the ledger folio of their

accounts and on the basis of those fake entries, withdrawals used

to be made.

11. Contention of the appellant is that the confession statement of

the appellant was not voluntary and PWs 2 and 3 were persons in

authority who have pressurised the appellant to make the

confession and therefore, Ex.-PW-3/A and Ex.-PW-2/A cannot be

said to have been made voluntarily and cannot form the basis for

conviction.

12. Placing reliance upon Ajay Singh v. State of Maharashtra

(2007) 12 SCC 341, it was contended that extra-judicial confession

can only form basis of conviction if it is voluntary and person to

whom confession is made should be unbiased and not inimical to

the accused. Learned counsel also placed reliance upon Madan

Gopal Kakkad v. Naval Dubey and another (1992) 3 SCC 204 to

contend that extra-judicial confession of accused should not have

been obtained by coercion, promise of favour and should be

voluntary in nature acknowledging the guilt. Learned counsel

submitted that the officers who obtained extra-judicial confession of

the appellant (Exts.-PW-3/A and PW-2/A) had other vested interest

to act upon and the appellant being a Peon must have been allured

by the false hope of being absolved from the charges.

13. Extra-judicial confession is a weak piece of evidence and the