Extra-judicial confession and Section 313 fairness: conviction cannot rest on unsafe confession or unput incriminating circumstance.

An extra-judicial confession can sustain a conviction only if it is voluntary, clear, specific, unambiguous, and made to unbiased and credible witnesses; where the words, place, and surrounding circumstances are inconsistent, reliance becomes unsafe. The article further states that a conviction cannot be supported on an incriminating circumstance not put to the accused under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, because the accused must have a fair opportunity to explain every material circumstance. Applying those principles, the alleged confession and the kerosene-on-clothes circumstance were treated as unreliable or unusable, and the prosecution was said to have failed to prove the charge beyond reasonable doubt.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the alleged extra-judicial confession was reliable and sufficient to sustain the conviction. (ii) Whether the conviction could be supported when the incriminating circumstance relating to kerosene on the accused's clothes was not put to him under examination under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.

Issue (i): Whether the alleged extra-judicial confession was reliable and sufficient to sustain the conviction.

Analysis: An extra-judicial confession can form the basis of conviction only when it is voluntary, clear, specific, unambiguous, and made before witnesses who are unbiased and credible. Where there is material inconsistency as to the exact words used, the place where the statement was made, and the surrounding circumstances, the Court must act with caution. If the witnesses are not consistent on the substance of the confession and there is material suggesting possible animosity, reliance on such evidence becomes unsafe.

Conclusion: The alleged extra-judicial confession was not reliable and could not be safely relied upon to sustain the conviction.

Issue (ii): Whether the conviction could be supported when the incriminating circumstance relating to kerosene on the accused's clothes was not put to him under examination under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.

Analysis: Examination under Section 313 is intended to afford the accused a fair and proper opportunity to explain every material circumstance appearing against him. A conviction based on a circumstance not specifically put to the accused deprives him of that opportunity and cannot be sustained on that basis. Since the presence of kerosene on the accused's clothes was not put to him, that circumstance could not be used against him.

Conclusion: The incriminating circumstance could not be relied upon against the accused, as it was not put to him under Section 313.

Final Conclusion: The prosecution failed to establish the charge beyond reasonable doubt, and the conviction was set aside.

Ratio Decidendi: A conviction cannot rest on an unsafe extra-judicial confession or on an incriminating circumstance not fairly put to the accused under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.

---