Jiten Engti & Ors. v. State of Assam & Anr., 2026

The appellants were convicted by the Trial Court under Sections 302/34 IPC for the alleged murder of one person.

The conviction was primarily based upon confessional statements recorded under Section 164 CrPC.

During pendency of the appeal, one of the appellants, Jiten Engti, was declared a juvenile and was referred to the Juvenile Justice Board.

Before the High Court, the appellants contended that the confessions were improperly recorded because a police officer remained present in the room while the statements were being recorded.

It was further argued that one appellant had not made any confessional statement and had been convicted solely on the basis of confessions made by co-accused persons.

The State contended that all substantial procedural safeguards had been followed except for the presence of police personnel in the courtroom.

The prosecution further argued that the appellants had also made extra-judicial confessions before prosecution witnesses.

The High Court examined the records of the Magistrate and found that:

• the accused were brought by a Sub-Inspector of Police,

• the police officer remained present during recording of confessions, and

• certain accused persons were kept under custody of an armed police constable during the reflection period.

The Gauhati High Court held that confessions recorded in the presence of a police officer cannot be regarded as voluntary confessions.

The Court observed that the case was directly hit by principle no. (ix) laid down by the Supreme Court in
Rabindra Kumar Pal alias Dara Singh v. Republic of India.

The Bench emphasized that no police officer should remain present in open court at the time of recording confessional statements under Section 164 CrPC.

The Court found that the recording Magistrate himself had noted the presence of police personnel during recording of confessions.

The Bench held that such confessions were improperly recorded and therefore inadmissible in evidence.

The Court further observed that the alleged confessional statements could not be relied upon as substantive admissible evidence for recording conviction.

The High Court also found that apart from the confessions and alleged extra-judicial confessions, there was no independent evidence against the accused.

The Court declined to rely upon the alleged extra-judicial confessions as there was no corroboration to the testimonies of prosecution witnesses.

The Bench concluded that the conviction based on defective confessional statements was unsustainable in law.

Accordingly, the High Court set aside the conviction of the appellants under Sections 302/34 IPC.

The Court directed immediate release of the appellants from judicial custody, provided they were not required in any other case.

The judgment strongly reinforces procedural safeguards governing recording of confessions under Section 164 CrPC.

The High Court emphasized the constitutional importance of ensuring voluntariness and absence of police influence during confession recording.

By relying on Rabindra Kumar Pal alias Dara Singh, the Court reaffirmed settled principles safeguarding accused persons against coerced confessions.

The ruling highlights that even technical procedural violations can substantially affect admissibility of evidence in criminal trials.

The judgment protects the integrity of criminal justice by ensuring that convictions are not based upon unreliable or tainted confessions.

The Court also reiterated the limited evidentiary value of extra-judicial confessions, particularly when lacking corroboration.

The decision reflects judicial caution against overreliance upon confession-based prosecutions without independent supporting evidence.

The ruling contributes significantly to jurisprudence concerning:

• fair trial rights,

• confessional evidence,

• procedural safeguards, and

• criminal evidentiary standards.