The bench of CJI UU Lalit, Justice Ravindra Bhat and Sudhanshu Dhulia of the Supreme Court ruled that the Video recording of the confession of the accused before the police is inadmissible as evidence.

Before pronouncing the law on the issue the Supreme Court notes the facts that "In the case at hand the entire case of the prosecution is built upon the confessional/voluntary statements made by the accused persons before the police and the recovery of the alleged weapon of murder recovered at the pointing out of the accused and the recovery of alleged stolen gold material from a jewelry shop, again, on pointing out of the accused. Let us deal with the first evidence. As per the police, all the accused were arrested from a school building on 31.01.2001 and formally arrested on 01.02.2001. They confessed to as many as 24 crimes committed by them. Their confessions of how they planned and executed the murders has been captured on a video, which was also exhibited before the court. The Court has taken this evidence of voluntary statements made by the accused and hence admitted it as evidence. This was done both by the Sessions Court as well as the High Court." 

And then adverting to the legal position the court held that "Both the Trial Court and the Appellate Court went completely wrong in placing reliance on the voluntary statements of the accused and their videography statements. Under Article 20(3)  of the Constitution of India, an accused cannot be compelled to be a witness against himself. Again, under Section 25 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872; a confessional statement given by an accused before a Police officer is inadmissible as evidence."

Finally, the Apex Court held "Ordinarily, this Court does not interfere with concurrent findings of facts as they are in the present case. But, then in the present case, it has become necessary to interfere with the findings for the reasons that both the High Court as well as the Sessions Court have ignored the well-established principles of criminal jurisprudence and have relied upon facts and evidences which are clearly inadmissible in a court of law. The crime indeed was ghastly, to say the least. Yet, linking the crime to the present appellants is an exercise which was to be undertaken in the court of law under established principles of law. This has not been done. This Court in Sharad
Birdhichand Sarda (supra) has cautioned thus: -

“179. We can fully understand that though the case superficially viewed bears an ugly look so as to prima facie shock the conscience of any court yet suspicion, however great it may be, cannot take the place of legal proof. A moral conviction however strong or genuine cannot amount to a legal conviction supportable in law.

180. It must be recalled that the well-established rule of criminal justice is that “fouler the crime higher the proof”. In the instant case, the life and liberty of a subject was at stake. As the accused was given a capital sentence, a very careful, cautious and meticulous approach was necessary to be made.”

Case Details:-

CRIMINAL APPEAL NOS.1597-1600 OF 2022
MUNIKRISHNA @ KRISHNA ETC. ……APPELLANT(S)
VERSUS
STATE BY ULSOOR PS ………RESPONDENT

Read the complete Judgment:-

https://main.sci.gov.in/supremecourt/2020/24079/24079_2020_6_1501_38822_Order_30-Sep-2022.pdf