An extra judicial confession is considered as a weak type of evidence unless it inspires confidence or is fully corroborated by some other evidence of clinching nature, ordinarily conviction for the offence of murder should not be made only on the evidence of extra judicial confession. It is generally used as a corroborative link to lend credibility to the other evidence on record. An extra judicial confession must be accepted with great care and caution. If it is not supported by other evidence on record, it fails to inspire confidence and in such a case, it shall not be treated as a strong piece of evidence for the purpose of arriving at the conclusion of guilt. Furthermore, the extent of acceptability of an extra judicial confession depends on the trustworthiness of the witness before whom it is given and the circumstances in which it was given. The prosecution must establish that a confession was indeed made by the accused, that it was voluntary in nature and that the contents of the confession were true. The standard required for proving an extra judicial confession to the satisfaction of the Court is on the higher side and these essential ingredients must be established beyond any reasonable doubt. The standard becomes even higher when the entire case of the prosecution necessarily rests on the extra judicial confession.
It’s Effect on other co-accused
An extra judicial confession made by the accused could be admitted in evidence only as a corroborative piece of evidence. In absence of any substantive evidence against the co-accused, the extra judicial confession allegedly made by the accused loses its significance against co-accused and there cannot be any conviction of co-accused based on such extra judicial confession of the accused.