Extrajudicial Confession is a confession made out of court, and not as a part of a judicial examination or investigation. Such a confession must be corroborated by some other proof of the corpus delicti, or else it is insufficient to warrant a conviction. The relevancy and admissibility of extra-judicial confession and discovery of facts are governed by Section 24 and Sec 27 of the Indian Evidence Act. Sec 24 deals with the admissibility of confession made to a person in authority other than a judicial authority and the conditions stipulated for their admissibility. Sec 27 of the Indian Evidence Act relates to the admissibility of fact discovered as a consequence of information given, while the accused is in Police custody.
Essential Requirements of Extra-Judicial Confession:
The requirements of an extra-judicial confession are obviously the same as for as confession, however, with an additional requirement that such a confession should have been made before a person otherwise than a Magistrate or a Police officer. It was further clarified that mere suggesting an inference that the accused committed the offence does not satisfy the requirement of a confession. The Supreme Court of India, further declared that the exculpatory part of the statement can be excluded if found improbable and only the inculpatory portion can be read as the confession for placing reliance thereon. The Supreme Court refused to rely upon an extra-judicial confession suffering from discrepancies like the persons to whom the confession was made, time when the same was made and the words of the statement. confession should be admissible as a piece of evidence; the statement of the accused should not only suggest an inference that he committed the offence but it must admit either in terms the offence or at any rate substantially all the facts which constitute the offence. For satisfying this requirement, however, the inculpatory portion of the statement must be sufficient to constitute the confession. And the evidence available from the surrounding circumstances, can only corroborate the evidence and help to test the veracity of the confessional statement. It is also readable from the judgment of the Apex Court that the task of separating exculpation from inculpation and ascertaining that the latter is an admissible and reliable piece of evidence is a task of craftsmanship requiring a sufficient degree of legal skill.
In Ratan Gond v. State of Bihar, the Supreme Court, however, suggested that in retracted confession the inculpatory part of the statement may be read along with the circumstances, surrounding the crime story. And if on a combined reading the Court finds the statement of the accused inculpatory and voluntarily made, the truth can be inferred.