Introduction

This is a landmark case on the evidentiary value of a confessionary First Information Report (FIR). The case resolves the contradiction between Sections 25, 26, and 27 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (IEA).

Facts

• In 1963, the appellant Aghnoo Nagesia was charged with the murder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) of four individuals.
• The appellant himself reported these offences to the police.
• The information of commission of offence was reduced to writing by a Sub-Inspector who was officer-in-charge of that Police Station.
  • The appellant provided his left thumbprint as confirmation and subsequently he was arrested.
• The bodies of the victims and the murder weapon were discovered during a joint visit by the appellant and the Sub-Inspector to deceased victim's house and other locations.
  • Additionally, a piece of cloth (chadar) stained with human blood was recovered from the appellant's residence.
• Medical evidence revealed that all four victims had incised wounds consistent with being inflicted by a sharp-cutting weapon, possibly a tangi, indicating that they had been brutally murdered.
• Notably, there were no eyewitnesses to the murders, and the primary piece of evidence was the confessional FIR filed by the appellant himself.
• The Judicial Commissioner of Chotanagpur after considering all the facts and circumstances of the case convicted the appellant for murder and sentenced him to death.
• The High Court of Patna accepted the death reference, confirmed the conviction and dismissed the appeal preferred by the appellant.
• The appellant approached the Supreme Court by way of a Special Leave Petition under Article 136 of the Constitution of India, 1950.

Issue Involved

Whether the statement or any portion of it is admissible in evidence?

Observations

• Section 25 of the IEA is one of the provisions of law dealing with confessions made by an accused. Confession is a species of admission and is dealt with in Sections 24 to 30 of the IEA.
  • It states that a confession made to a police officer under any circumstances is not admissible in evidence against the accused.
  • It covers a confession made when he was free and not in police custody, as also a confession made before any investigation has begun.
• Section 26 of IEA prohibits proof against any person of a confession made by him in the custody of a police officer, unless it is made in the immediate presence of a Magistrate.
  • It partially lifts the ban imposed by Sections 25 and 26 of IEA.
• It provides that police discover any fact or evidence in consequence of information received from a person accused of any offence that confessional statement may be proved before the court.
  • But it only applies if the person was in police custody when they gave the information.
• Thus, except as provided by Section 27 of IEA, a confession by an accused to a police officer is absolutely protected under Section 25 of IEA.
• If the FIR is given by the accused to a police officer and amounts to a confessional statement, proof of the confession is prohibited by Section 25.
• The confession includes not only the admission of the offence, but all other admissions of incriminating facts related to the offence contained in the confessional statement.
• No part of the confessional statement is receivable in evidence except to the extent that the ban of Section 25 is lifted by Section 27.
• Section 27 applies only to information received from a person accused of an offence in the custody of a police officer.

Conclusion

Finally, the SC allowed the appeal and set aside the conviction and sentence passed by other Courts contending that when the appellant gave the confessional FIR he was not in the custody of the Sub-Inspector.

Note

• Section 302 of the IPC- Punishment for murder
  • Whoever commits murder shall be punished with death, or imprisonment for life, and shall also be liable to fine.
• Section 24 of IEA - Confession caused by inducement, threat or promise, when irrelevant in criminal proceeding.
  • A confession made by an accused person is irrelevant in a criminal proceeding, if the making of the confession appears to the Court to have been caused by any inducement, threat or promise, having reference to the charge against the accused person, proceeding from a person in authority and sufficient, in the opinion of the Court, to give the accused person grounds, which would appear to him reasonable for supposing that by making it he would gain any advantage or avoid any evil of a temporal nature in reference to the proceedings against him.
• Section 25 of IEA - Confession to police officer not to be proved.
  • No confession made to a police-officer shall be proved as against a person accused of any offence.
• Section 26 of IEA - Confession by accused while in custody of police not to be proved against him.
  • No confession made by any person whilst he is in the custody of a police-officer, unless it be made in the immediate presence of a [Magistrate], shall be proved as against such person.
  • Explanation. - In this section "Magistrate" does not include the head of a village discharging magisterial functions in the presidency of Fort St. George or elsewhere, unless such headman is a Magistrate exercising the powers of a Magistrate under the Code of Criminal Procedure. 1882.
• Section 27 of IEA - How much of information received from accused may be proved.
  • Provided 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.