Confessional FIR

Source: Supreme Court 

Why in News? 

The bench of Justices J.B. Pardiwala and R. Mahadevan in Narayan Yadav v. State of Chhattisgarh (2025) delivered a significant judgment acquitting the appellant and establishing important precedents regarding confessional First Information Reports (FIRs), expert witness evidence, and the application of exceptions under Section 300 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC). 

What was the Background of Narayan Yadav v. State of Chhattisgarh (2025) Case? 

Case Origins: 

• The appellant himself lodged an FIR on 27th September, 2019, at Korba Kotwali Police Station confessing to the murder of Ram Babu Sharma. 
• The FIR contained detailed confessional statements about how the appellant killed the deceased after a quarrel over showing his girlfriend's photograph. 
• The Trial Court convicted the appellant under Section 302 IPC (murder) and sentenced him to life imprisonment. 
• The High Court partly allowed the appeal, altering the conviction from Section 302 to Section 304 Part I IPC, applying Exception 4 to Section 300. 

Medical Evidence: 

• Post-mortem examination revealed six incised wounds on the deceased's body, including fatal injuries to the chest and head. 
• The cause of death was determined as shock resulting from excessive bleeding from the right side of chest and injury to the upper lobe of right lung. 
• Dr. R.K. Divya (PW-10) conducted the post-mortem and testified about the homicidal nature of death. 

Investigation Details: 

• The investigating officer recovered the knife allegedly used in the crime from the deceased's house. 
• Clothes and other articles were collected and sent for forensic analysis. 
• Most witnesses turned hostile during the trial, weakening the prosecution case. 

Court's Observations 

The Supreme Court made several critical observations highlighting fundamental errors in the lower courts' approach to evidence evaluation: 

• Confessional FIR Inadmissibility: The High Court wrongly relied on the appellant's confessional FIR as evidence, violating Section 25 of the Indian Evidence Act 1872 (IEA) which makes confessions to police officers absolutely inadmissible. Such FIRs can only be used as evidence of conduct under Section 8 or for discoveries under Section 27.
• Expert Witness Evidence Limitations: Medical expert testimony is purely advisory and cannot be the sole basis for murder conviction. The Court emphasized that doctors are not witnesses of fact but provide specialized opinions, and accused cannot be held guilty solely on medical evidence without corroborating direct or circumstantial evidence.
• Incorrect Exception 4 Application: The High Court wrongly applied Exception 4 (sudden fight) to Section 300 IPC. This exception requires mutual combat between parties on equal footing, no premeditation, no undue advantage, and no cruel conduct. Here, the deceased was unarmed and harmless, making it inappropriate. If any exception applied, it should have been Exception 1 (grave and sudden provocation).
• Section 27 and Section 8 Issues: No proper discovery under Section 27 was established as panch witnesses failed to depose exact statements leading to discoveries. While conduct under Section 8 was relevant, it alone cannot justify conviction in grave charges like murder.
• Overall Evidence Failure: The case was based on "no legal evidence" due to inadmissible confessional FIR (main evidence excluded), insufficient medical evidence, hostile panch witnesses providing no corroborating testimony, and wrong legal applications by lower courts.

What is Section 8 of IEA/ Section 6 of BSA? 

• Section 6 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 (BSA) establishes the relevancy of facts showing motive, preparation, and conduct in legal proceedings.  
• Previously, it was covered under Section 8 of the IEA.

The provision encompasses two key aspects: 

• Sub-section (1) - Motive and Preparation 
  • Any fact is relevant which shows or constitutes a motive or preparation for any fact in issue or relevant fact. 
• Sub-section (2) - Previous or Subsequent Conduct 
  • The conduct of any party, agent, or person (in criminal proceedings) is relevant if such conduct influences or is influenced by any fact in issue or relevant fact, whether such conduct was previous or subsequent to the fact in issue. 
• Key Principles 
  • Motive Evidence: Facts demonstrating why a person would commit an act are admissible to establish connection between the accused and the offence. 
  • Preparation Evidence: Acts showing systematic planning or readiness to commit the offence are relevant to prove intention and premeditation. 
  • Conduct Relevancy: Both pre-crime and post-crime behaviour is admissible if it has logical connection to the facts in issue, including:  
    • Absconding after commission of crime 
    • Destroying or concealing evidence 
    • Procuring false witnesses 
    • Flight upon discovery 
    • Possession of stolen property 
  • Temporal Scope: The section covers conduct occurring before, during, or after the alleged incident, provided it influences or is influenced by the fact in issue. 
  • Exclusion of Statements: Pure statements are excluded unless they accompany and explain acts, though they may be relevant under other provisions of the Act. 

What is Section 27 of IEA? 

• This section deals with how much information received from accused may be proved. 
• It is covered under proviso to Section 23 (2) of BSA.  
• It states that when any fact is deposed to as discovered in consequence of information received from a person accused of any offence, in the custody of a police-officer, so much of such information, whether it amounts to a confession or not, as relates distinctly to the fact thereby discovered, may be proved. 
• This section is based on the doctrine of confirmation by subsequent events – a fact is actually discovered as a consequence of the information given, which results in recovery of a physical object.