Corroboration Of Extra Judicial Confession Is Not Required In Each And Every Case

The Supreme Court, while affirming the conviction of a bank’s peon accused of corruption, has observed that extra-judicial confession of accused need not in all cases be corroborated and there is no requirement that each and every circumstance mentioned in the confession 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. Rule of Prudence does not require that each and every circumstance mentioned in the confession 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. 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,” the bench comprising Justice R. Banumathi and Justice Indira Banerjee said in Ram Lal vs. State of Himachal Pradesh.

The ‘confession’, in this case, was made to two senior officers who conducted the inquiry. In the confession, the peon admitted that he did not account for the money, but misappropriated the same and that when the account holder visited the bank for 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… and on the basis of those fake entries, withdrawals used to be made.

Upholding the concurrent findings, the bench said:

“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 each and every circumstance mentioned in the confession must be separately and independently corroborated.”

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *