WHY IN THE NEWS?
The Honourable Supreme Court of India has recently ruled that any confession made by the person himself against him while lodging a First Information Report (FIR) will be inadmissible as evidence for corroboration under the Evidence Act. The court put a special emphasis upon section 25 of the Evidence Act, which bars the confessions made to police officers from being proved against the accused.
BACKGROUND
In the year 2019, the appellant lodged an FIR, making a confession of the series of events committed by him whereby he ultimately killed his employer, Ram Babu Sharma, during a drunken altercation between the two. In the FIR, the appellant admitted using a knife and a wooden log to attack and ultimately kill the victim, stealing the money and one vehicle from the crime scene.
The trial court found the appellant guilty of murder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and sentenced him to life imprisonment. On appeal to the Chhattisgarh High Court, the court modified his conviction to Section 304 Part I IPC (culpable homicide not amounting to murder), citing sudden provocation under Exception 4 of Section 300 IPC, which the Supreme Court found flawed.
SUPREME COURT’S APPROACH
A bench comprising Justice J.B. Pardiwala and Justice R. Mahadevan heard the matter and set aside the conviction of the appellant, who had been initially sentenced for murder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), and acquitted him for lack of evidence against him. The court held that a confession made by a person against himself will not be treated as permissible evidence for the purpose of corroboration except for very limited purposes. Citing precedents such as Aghnoo Nagesia vs State of Bihar (1966) and Faddi vs State of Madhya Pradesh (1964), the Court held that, “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.”
The Court criticized the High Court for corroborating medical evidence with the confessional FIR and observed that the testimony of the medical expert is advisory in nature and cannot be the sole basis for conviction. “An accused cannot be held guilty of the offence of murder solely on the basis of medical evidence on record,” the court said.
Furthermore, the court found the High Court’s decision of invoking Exception 4 (sudden fight) to Section 300 IPC without fulfilling all its ingredients. The Court said for Exception 4 to apply, the fight must be mutual, without premeditation, and without the offender taking undue advantage or acting in a cruel or unusual manner and in the given case the deceased was unarmed, and the attack was indiscriminate, making Exception 4 inapplicable.
CONCLUSION
The Supreme Court has recently ruled out in the case of Narayan Yadav vs. State of Chattisgarh that any confession made by the person himself against him while lodging a First Information Report (FIR) will be inadmissible as evidence for corroboration under section 25 of the evidence act.
AUTHOR’S INFORMATION
Mansi, a third year law student currently studying at VIPS-TC under Guru Gobind Indraprastha University with a growing interest for legal research. She’s passionate about criminal justice, family law and advocacy for rights of women and children.