Apex Law Journal
Apex Law Journal
An online law journal reporting latest and important judgments of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India.                                                                                                                         Click here to get free legal updates via email                                                                                                                          Click here to download forms (Address Form, List Of Documents and Memorandum Of Appearance)
User Name :
Password :
New Subscriber
Forgot Password


Neha Goel, Advocate

Advisory Board

S.C. Khunger, Advocate

Rohit Bansal, Advocate

Varinder Singh Kanwar, Advocate

Hittan Nehra, Advocate

Judgments on Extra Judicial Confession

Sunday, November 20, 2011
Extra Judicial Confession

Extra-Judicial Confession — When there is no other evidence of sterling quality on record establishing the involvement of the accused, then he cannot be convicted on the basis of the alleged extra-judicial confession of the co-accused which is also not credible.

Extra Judicial Confession

Extra-Judicial Confession — In his statement recorded under Section 313 of the Code, A1, in the present case, has denied that he made any such statement — This retraction makes a dent in the alleged extra-judicial confession — Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, Section 313.

Extra Judicial Confession

Extra-Judicial Confession — Case of the prosecution that A1 made an extra-judicial confession to PW-4 — Prosecution evidence, however, does not indicate that A1 and PW-4 knew each other intimately — In his evidence PW-4 stated that his village is about 35 to 40 k.m. from the village of A1 and none of his relatives stay in that village — Held, in view of the above, it is difficult to accept the prosecution case that A1 made any extra judicial confession to PW-4. 

Extra Judicial Confession

Extra-Judicial Confession — Made after about five months from the date of incident — Held, this delay creates a doubt about its credibility.

Friday, August 06, 2010
Extra Judicial Confession

Extra judicial confession — Held, evidentiary value of extra judicial confession depends upon trustworthiness of the witness before whom confession is made — Law does not contemplate that the evidence of an extra judicial confession should in all cases be corroborated — It is not an inflexible rule that in no case conviction can be based solely on extrajudicial confession — It is basically in the realm of appreciation of evidence and a question of fact to be decided in the facts and circumstances of each case.

Monday, February 22, 2010
Extra Judicial Confession

Extra Judicial Confession — Admissibility or acceptability of the extra judicial confession in the form of counter affidavit made by the first accused before the High Court in the earlier proceedings are all matters to be considered at the time of trial — Their probative value, admissibility, reliability etc are matters for evaluation after trial.

Thursday, February 04, 2010
Extra Judicial Confession

Extra judicial confession — Though extra judicial confession is considered to be a weak piece of evidence by the courts, this Court finds that there is neither any rule of law nor of prudence that the evidence furnishing extra judicial confession cannot be relied upon unless corroborated by some other credible evidence — The evidence relating to extra judicial confession can be acted upon if the evidence about extra judicial confession comes from the mouth of a witness who appears to be unbiased and in respect of whom even remotely nothing is brought out which may tend to indicate that he may have a motive for attributing an untruthful statement to the accused.

Extra Judicial Confession

Extra judicial confession — Evidence Act, 1872, Section 26 — The contention that when the appellant was being brought to the court, he was in custody and, therefore, the extra judicial confession referred to by PW5 would be hit by the provisions of Section 26 of the Evidence Act and could not have been received in evidence, held, cannot be accepted — As observed earlier, the record shows that the appellant and another were produced before the Court for extension of judicial remand — The appellant could not probablise his defence that he was in custody of police officer — He could not name the police officer who had brought him with Mumtaz to the Court premises for extension of judicial remand nor it is his case that to the hearing of the police officer who brought him to the court premises, he had made confessional statement before PW5 — On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, This Court is of the opinion that it is not probablised by the defence that the appellant was in custody of police officer while he had made extra judicial confession before PW5 — The evidence relating to extra judicial confession inspires confidence of this Court — On this point, there is concurrent finding by the courts below and no case is made out by the appellant to interfere with the said finding in the present appeal.

Act Topic
Rule Citation
Free Text Search
Follow us on :
(Best view with 1024x768 Resolution)
© All rights including Copyrights and rights of translations etc, reserved and vested exclusively with Deepak Publications. No part of this publication may be reproduced or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronics, mechanical, photocopying, recording or otherwise, or stored in any retrival system of any nature without the written permission of the copyright owner.

By using this site, you (and any entity on whose behalf your are acting) are consenting to be bound by Terms & Conditions, Privacy Policy & Disclaimer Clause.