FIR Statement of One Accused Not Usable Against Another

Source: Supreme Court 

Why in News? 

The Supreme Court in Narayan Yadav v. State of Chhattisgarh (2025) clarified that statements made by one accused in an FIR cannot be used against another accused, ruling that "a statement contained in the FIR furnished by one of the accused cannot, in any manner, be used against another accused. Even as against the accused who made it, the statement cannot be used if it is inculpatory in nature." 

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

• The appellant himself lodged an FIR dated 27.09.2019 with Korba Kotwali Police Station, District Korba, which was registered for offences punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC).  
• The FIR contained a detailed confession by the appellant describing how he killed Ram Babu Sharma after a quarrel over showing his girlfriend's photograph. 
• Upon investigation, the dead body was found in the deceased's house, and various articles including the alleged murder weapon (knife) were recovered. 
• The post-mortem report revealed six incised wounds on the deceased's body, with the cause of death being shock resulting from excessive bleeding from the right chest and injury to the upper lobe of the right lung. 
• The Trial Court convicted the appellant under Section 302 of the IPC and sentenced him to life imprisonment. 
• The High Court partly allowed the appeal, altering the conviction from Section 302 to Section 304 Part I of the IPC, giving benefit of Exception 4 to Section 300 of the IPC. 
• The appellant approached the Supreme Court challenging the High Court's judgment. 

What were the Court's Observations? 

The bench of Justices J.B. Pardiwala and R. Mahadevan allowed the criminal appeal and acquitted the appellant of all charges and identified multiple fundamental errors in the High Court's approach and made the following key observations: 

• On Confessional FIR: It was held that the High Court's first misstep was treating the confessional FIR as admissible evidence. The Court emphasized that any confession made by an accused before police is prohibited under Section 25 of the Evidence Act, 1872, and cannot be corroborated with medical evidence. 
• On Expert Evidence: The bench criticized the High Court for relying medical testimony, noting that "a doctor is not a witness of fact" and expert evidence is "only advisory in nature." Justice Pardiwala stressed that medical evidence alone cannot establish guilt in murder cases. 
• On Exception 4 Misapplication: It was found the High Court's application of Exception 4 to Section 300 IPC legally erroneous, observing that "the deceased was unarmed" and there was no "mutual fight" as required. The Court noted the appellant "took undue advantage and acted in a cruel manner" by attacking a harmless victim. 
• On Evidence Adequacy: The bench concluded that with most panch witnesses turning hostile and no legally admissible evidence connecting the appellant to the crime, "the case is one of no legal evidence and therefore, the appellant deserves to be acquitted." 

What is FIR? 

• Section 173 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS) states the provisions related to Information in cognizable cases. 
• Earlier it was covered under Section 154 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (CrPC). 
• It is commonly known as the FIR though this term is not used in the Code. As its nickname suggests, it is the earliest and the first information of a cognizable offence recorded by an officer in charge of a police station.  
• The main objective of the FIR is to set the criminal law in motion and to obtain information about the alleged criminal activity and to obtain true or nearly true versions of the events connected with a crime. 
• It provides a check on the undesirable tendency on the part of the prosecution to fill the gaps on their own. 
• To safeguard the accused against subsequent variations or additions. 
• It can only be used for certain limited purposes such as: 
  • FIR is proved by the prosecution for the purpose of corroborating the statement of the maker. It can also be used to contradict the first informant. 
  • It can be used to show that the implication of the accused in the case was not an afterthought. 
  • Where FIR can be tendered in evidence as a part of the conduct of the informant, it can be used as substantive evidence. 
  • It the informant dies, and the FIR contains a statement as to the cause of his death or the circumstances relating to his death, it may be used as substantive evidence.