Supreme Court Allows Appeal, Acquits Accused After Finding High Court Erroneously Relied on Confessional FIR and Expert Evidence

A bench of Justices J.B. Pardiwala and R. Mahadevan heard an appeal against the Chhattisgarh High Court’s order which had altered a trial court’s conviction for murder under Section 302 IPC to culpable homicide not amounting to murder under Section 304 Part I IPC. The appeal challenged the High Court’s reliance on the FIR lodged by the accused himself, the weight given to medical opinion, and the application of Exception 4 to Section 300 IPC.

The Court allowed the appeal, set aside the High Court’s judgment and order, and acquitted the appellant of all charges. The Court held that the High Court had erred in treating the confessional contents of the FIR as substantive corroborative evidence and had placed undue reliance on medical evidence and panchnama entries that were not properly proved. The Court emphasised that "any confession made by an accused before the police is hit by Section 25 of the Act of 1872." It further observed that "an expert witness is examined by the prosecution as a medical expert for the purpose of proving the contents of the post-mortem report ... The evidence of such an expert is of an advisory character." The Court, in its reasoning, observed: To put the aforesaid in simpler terms, 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.

Background The appellant, Narayan Yadav, lodged an FIR on 27.09.2019 reporting that he had killed the deceased after a quarrel at the deceased’s house and describing the manner of assault. Investigation followed; the body was found in the house, a knife allegedly used was recovered, clothes and other articles were seized and sent for chemical analysis, and a post-mortem recorded multiple incised wounds and death due to haemothorax from lung laceration. The trial court convicted the appellant under Section 302 IPC and sentenced him to life imprisonment. On appeal the High Court reduced the conviction to Section 304 Part I IPC, accepting the trial court’s reliance on the post-mortem and treating the FIR as corroborative, and granting benefit under Exception 4 to Section 300 IPC.

The Supreme Court reviewed legal precedents including Nisar Ali, Faddi, and Aghnoo Nagesia and held that the High Court overlooked settled principles: a confessional statement to police is barred by Section 25 Evidence Act and cannot be used as substantive evidence against its maker except in limited respects under Sections 8 and 27 Evidence Act; where a statement contains both inculpatory and exculpatory material the whole should be excluded if it is a confession; and an expert’s medical opinion was advisory and could not alone sustain a conviction. The Court found that most panch witnesses turned hostile and the panchnama entries were not independently proved; no admissible discovery under Section 27 was established. The Court also noted that Exception 4 to Section 300 IPC requires a true "sudden fight" between parties without undue advantage or cruel manner and that, on the facts as proved, that exception was not demonstrably applicable. In view of absence of lawful evidence to sustain conviction, the Supreme Court acquitted the appellant and ordered his release if not wanted in any other case; bail bonds were discharged.

Case Details: Case No.: 2025 INSC 927 (Criminal Appeal No. 3343 of 2025; arising out SLP (Crl.) No. 10595 of 2025) Case Title: Narayan Yadav v. State of Chhattisgarh Appearances: For the Petitioner(s): Not indicated in the judgment For the Respondent(s): Not indicated in the judgment