In Padala Veera Reddy v. A bench of justices R Banumathi and Indira Banerjee said in cases of extra-judicial confession, courts must ensure that the same inspires confidence and was corroborated by other prosecution evidence. He took the accused to the Police Station along with the report. Extra-judicial confession is generally a weak piece of evidence and has to be received with caution. Some signs of injuries, according to the witnesses of extra-judicial confession, were apparent on both the hands of accused which could be a corroborative piece of evidence but the accused after his arrest was not got medically examined in this regard.
No other evidence was produced to convict the accused. The law is clear that a confession cannot be used against an accused person unless the court is satisfied that it was voluntary and at that stage the question whether it is true or false does not arise. Our newspaper has received tremendous response from the readers as well as advertisers. The prosecution case found to be inconsistent with the confessional statement. Non-judicial confession shall be subject to the estimation of the judge and shall be verified by virtue of the general rules related to proof. The confession will have to be proved just like any other fact.
Incident was a case of blind murder which was reported to the police through a report made under S. In case of a conspiracy, the acts of one conspirator are the acts of all, while active in the progress of the conspiracy, but after it is over, the confession of one as to the part he and others took in the crime, is not evidence against any but himself. He was produced before the Magistrate and Magistrate took precaution in not recording his statement on that day. The informant had offered to protect Fulminante from other inmates in exchange for hearing the truth about the murder. And, the confession which absolves the accused of any guilt is exculpatory confession.
Such evidence could not be relied upon as corroborating evidence. When made without bias or improper influence, confessions are admissible in evidence, as the highest and most satisfactory proof: because it is fairly presumed that no man would make such a confession against himself, if the facts confessed were not true but they are excluded, if liable to the of having been unfairly obtained. Prosecution evidence was neither probable nor inspired confidence. He continued to talk even after the police read him the Miranda rights. By extending benefit of doubt to accused, they had been found entitled to earn acquittal. It is also a plea of guilty made by the accused in a fit state of mind to plead, before a court which is competent to try him for the offense charged and which, upon the entry of the plea, is competent to enter judgment and fix the penalty. Courts below had based the conviction of accused only on their joint extra-judicial confession, which was defective in law and was not corroborated by any other piece of evidence.
Gun alleged to have been recovered at the instance of accused was not sent to Fire Arm Expert. Hence the oral evidence of the magistrate was not admissible. The value of the evidence as to the confession depends on the reliability of the witness who gives the evidence. Sethi by the appellant, no question was put to R. There is no reason as to why the accused would make confession before a stranger. The confession must be made by the party to be affected by it. If these two conditions are satisfied, it becomes the most portent piece of evidence against the maker.
But they are excluded if unfairly obtained. Thereafter, the accused asked the whereabouts of the deceased. A jury found him guilty of murder and sentenced him to death. The statement which runs to eleven sheets has been held to be made by the appellant voluntarily. Link to this page: confession. The confession will have to be proved like any other fact.
As the section enacts, a confession made by an accused person is irrelevant in criminal proceedings, if the making of the confession appears to the court to have been caused by any inducement, threat or promise, 1 having reference to the charge against the accused person, 2 proceeding from a person in authority, and 3 sufficient, in the opinion of the court to give the accused person grounds which would appear to him reasonable for supposing that by making it he would gain any advantage or avoid any evil of a temporal nature in reference to the proceedings against him. Comments with all capital letters will also be deleted. One witness of the extra-judicial confession allegedly madeb by accused had refused to support the prosecution case. Trial court convicted accused and sentenced him to imprisonment for life. The fact that the statement was lengthy and covered minute details goes to ensure its truth.
Said confession made by the accused in custody of police was inadmissible in view of Art. No reliance therefore, could be placed on the evidence of said extra judicial confession. No witness had seen the deceased last in the company of accused. Evidence of said two prosecution witnesses, in circumstances, required strict scrutiny and was not worth reliance. Evidence of extra-judicial confession alone without any corroboration was not sufficient to maintain any conviction thereon. Prosecution case hinged on the testimony of one of the prosecution witnesses who had found a skeleton and in those presence accused had confessed their guilt. Accused was involved in the case after about nine months of the occurrence on the basis of evidence of extra judicial confession allegedly made by him at a bus stop before two prosecution witnesses, who had neither apprehended the accused nor informed the complainant or the Investigating Officer about the same at that time.