Difference between Judicial and Extra-Judicial Confession are given below:
The fact that a confession is extra-judicial and non-judicial does not really make any difference. The only material difference between a judicial and an extra-judicial confession is that the former is recorded by a Magistrate with all the formalities provided by Section 164 CrPC in order to facilitate ascertainment of the confession having been given voluntarily, the aid of these formalities and the evidence of the Magistrate are not available in the case of an extra-judicial confession.
ADVERTISEMENTS:
All the same, if it could otherwise be ascertained that the extra-judicial confession has been made voluntarily and it was true, its probative value would be the same as that of a confession duly recorded under Section 164 CrPC.
Further when an extra-judicial confession is found to be both true and voluntary, there would, strictly speaking, be no bar to the conviction on the basis of that confession alone even though it was retracted by the accused subsequently.
Image Source: img.washingtonpost.com
In an extra-judicial confession, exact words uttered by accused should be proved. It is not safe to rely upon impression. Mere general statement that the accused confessed is insufficient. Finally, the evidence of oral extra-judicial confession is undoubtedly a very weak piece of evidence and it would be dangerous to convict a person solely on its basis. But it can be taken into consideration along with other evidence.
It is not the law that extra-judicial confessions cannot be accepted and acted upon or that they are to be classed under some inferior category of admission or confession.
ADVERTISEMENTS:
Where they are made voluntarily by the accused immediately after the crime to strangers visiting the accused with every token of truthfulness and repentance, even if momentary, the Court would definitely be justified in accepting and acting upon such confessional statement.
Extra-judicial confession must be accepted and acted upon as a whole. It is not permissible for the Court acting upon this evidence to do so only with regard to a part of a confession and to reject some part of it because the accused may not be able to offer further proof.
It is the duty of the Court to scrutinize the evidence and circumstances carefully in order to ascertain whether the confession was voluntarily made. If the Court feels that it is impossible to hold, on the basis of that circumstance alone, that it may come to conclusion that the confession was not freely made