Institute of Legal and Management Studies

The Supreme Court on Tuesday (Aug. 5) set aside the conviction of a murder convict, who was convicted based on the confessional FIR registered by him.

The Court held that the confessional FIR filed by the appellant, being barred under Section 25 of the Evidence Act, could not by itself form the basis for conviction in the absence of strong corroborative evidence establishing guilt. With the FIR deemed inadmissible, the medical evidence, though carrying corroborative value, was also found to be non-conclusive, the court added.

“an FIR of a confessional nature made by an accused person is inadmissible in evidence against him, except to the extent that it shows he made a statement soon after the offence, thereby identifying him as the maker of the report, which is admissible as evidence of his conduct under Section 8 of the Act of 1872. Additionally, any information furnished by him that leads to the discovery of a fact is admissible under Section 27 of the Act of 1872. However, a non-confessional FIR is admissible against the accused as an admission under Section 21 of the Act of 1872 and is relevant.”, the court observed.

“There was no question at all for the High Court to seek corroboration of the medical evidence on record with the confessional part of the FIR lodged by the appellant.”, the court added.

The bench comprising Justices JB Pardiwala and R. Mahadevan heard the murder convict's appeal against the High Court's decision upholding his conviction, ignoring the confessional nature of the FIR registered by him. The Appellant lodged an FIR confessing killing of the deceased during a drunken altercation triggered by an obscene remark about his girlfriend. The High Court relied on this FIR and medical evidence to justify conviction, although modifying it to culpable homicide not amounting to murder under Section 304 Part I IPC.

Setting aside the High Court's decision, the judgment authored by Justice Pardiwala reiterated the settled legal position that confessional statements made to the police are inadmissible unless they lead to a discovery of fact under Section 27 of the Evidence Act. It further observed that the medical evidence, although holding a corroborative value, would be inconsequential to the prosecution's benefit as the same cannot be held conclusive for establishing the Appellant's guilt.

“The High Court should have been mindful of the fact that a doctor is not a witness of fact. A doctor is examined by the prosecution as a medical expert for the purpose of proving the contents of the post-mortem report and the medical certificates on record, if any. An expert witness is examined by the prosecution because of his specialized knowledge on certain subjects, which the judge may not be fully equipped to assess. The evidence of such an expert is of an advisory character. The credibility of the expert witness depends on the reasons provided in support of his conclusions, as well as the data and material forming the basis of those conclusions. An accused cannot be held guilty of the offence of murder solely on the basis of medical evidence on record.”, the Court observed.

“Most of the panch witnesses turned hostile. If at all, the public prosecutor wanted to prove the contents of the panchnamas after the panch witnesses turned hostile, he could have done so through the evidence of the investigating officer. However, the investigating officer also failed to prove the contents of the panchnamas in accordance with law. Thus, there is nothing on record by way of evidence relating to any discovery of fact is concerned. In other words, no discovery of fact at the instance of the appellant, relevant and admissible under Section 27 of the Act of 1872, has been established.”, the court added.

Resultantly, the appeal was allowed.

Cause Title: NARAYAN YADAV VERSUS STATE OF CHHATTISGARH

Citation : 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 771

Click here to read/download the judgment

Appearance:

For Petitioner(s) :Mr. A Sirajudeen, Sr. Adv. Ms. Manjeet Chawla, AOR Mr. Vishek Vats, Adv. Ms. Shaik Soni Ahamed, Adv. Ms. Kiran Bala Agarwal, Adv.

For Respondent(s) : Ms. Sugandha Jain, Standing Counsel For State Of Chhattisgarh, Adv. Mr. Prabodh Kumar, AOR