Presence of police during Section 164 CrPC recording vitiates confession and renders it inadmissible evidence.

The four appellants were convicted by the Sessions Judge, Karbi Anglong, under Sections 302/34 of the IPC for the murder of the complainant's father.

Appellant No. 1 was later declared a juvenile and referred to the Juvenile Justice Board.

The convictions of Appellants 2, 3, and 4 relied exclusively on the judicial confessions recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. of Appellants 1, 2, and 3, and alleged extra-judicial confessions made to the deceased’s sons (PW-1 and PW-2).

The appellants challenged the conviction on the ground that the confessions were recorded in the presence of police personnel and lacked corroboration.

1. Whether the confessional statements recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. are admissible when recorded in the presence of a police officer.

2. Whether an extra-judicial confession can form the sole basis of conviction in the absence of independent corroborative evidence.

3. Whether the conviction of a co-accused (Appellant No. 4) can be sustained solely based on the confessions of other co-accused.

Section 164 Cr.P.C. regarding the recording of confessions and Section 30 of the Indian Evidence Act regarding confessions of co-accused.

Rabindra Kumar Pal Alias Dara Singh v. Republic of India (2011), which established that no police official shall be present during the recording of a Section 164 statement.

Extra-judicial confessions are deemed weak evidence requiring independent corroboration following Kushal Toppo v. State of Jharkhand (2019) and Nikhil Chandra Mondal v. State of West Bengal (2023).

Haricharan Kurmi v. State of Bihar (1964) to reiterate that a co-accused's confession can only lend assurance to other existing evidence and cannot be the starting point for conviction.

The Court found the Section 164 Cr.P.C. confessions inadmissible because the recording Magistrate explicitly noted the presence of a Sub-Inspector in the room during the recording, violating the mandatory safeguard of the accused being free from police influence.

Regarding the extra-judicial confessions, the Court noted that PW-1 and PW-2 (sons of the deceased) were not corroborated by other named witnesses (PW-5 and PW-8), and their testimonies were omitted from their initial police statements, rendering the confessions doubtful.

As the confessions of Appellants 2 and 3 were defective and inadmissible, they could not be used under Section 30 of the Evidence Act to implicate Appellant No. 4, as there was no other "satisfactory" evidence to which the confession could lend assurance.

The Court allowed the appeal, set aside the judgment dated 19/01/2018, and ordered the immediate release of Appellants 2, 3, and 4 from judicial custody, provided they are not required in any other case.