Extra-Judicial confession was made before a witness who was a close relative of accused and the testamony of said witness was reliable and truthful. Examine the relevancy of this confession.

Confessions are classified as: (a) judicial, and (b) extra-judicial. Judicial confessions are those made before a Court or recorded by a Magistrate under Section 164 of the Criminal Procedure Code after following the prescribed procedure such as warning the accused that he need not to make the confession and that if he made it, it would be used against him. Extra-judicial confessions are those which are made either to the police or to any person other than Judges and Magistrates as such. An extra-judicial confession, if voluntary, can be relied upon by the Court along with other evidence. It will have to be proved just like any other fact. The value of the evidence depends upon the truthfulness of the witness to whom it is made. In Ram Khilari v. State of Rajasthan, AIR 1999 SC 1002, the Supreme Court held that where an extra-judicial confession was made before a witness who was a close relative of the accused and the testimony of said witness was reliable and truthful, the conviction on the basis of extra judicial confession is proper. In another case, the Supreme Court has further held that the law does not require that the evidence of an extra-judicial confession should be corroborated in all cases. When such confession was proved by an independent witness who was a responsible officer and one who bore no animus against the accused, there is hardly any justification to disbelieve it. Also, where the Court finds that the confession made by the accused to his friend was unambiguous and unmistakably conveyed that the accused was the perpetrator of the crime and the testimony of the friend was truthful, reliable and trustworthy, a conviction based on such extra-judicial confession is proper and no corroboration is necessary. Therefore, in the given situation, the Extra-Judicial confession may be relevant.