Kiran Raj

The Supreme Court of India Division Bench of Justice J.B. Pardiwala and Justice R. Mahadevan allowed an appeal against a High Court judgment, setting aside the conviction of an accused and acquitting him of all charges. The Bench held that the conviction was unsustainable as it was primarily based on a confessional First Information Report (FIR) lodged by the accused, which is inadmissible under Section 25 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. The Court directed that the appellant be released forthwith if not required in any other case and ordered the circulation of its judgment to all High Courts.

The case arose from an incident on 27 September 2019 in Korba, Chhattisgarh, where the appellant, who resided with a relative and worked as a milk supplier, lodged an FIR at Kotwali Police Station. In the FIR, he narrated that on 24 September 2019, he visited the deceased's house for drinks. During the interaction, a quarrel allegedly broke out after the deceased made an objectionable remark about the appellant's girlfriend. The FIR recorded that the appellant attacked the deceased with a vegetable-cutting knife and a log of wood, causing fatal injuries, and subsequently took cash and a vehicle from the scene before leaving for Bilaspur, where he met with an accident.

Also Read: Absence Of Injuries Cannot Undermine Credible Testimony | Supreme Court Says Survivor’s Sole Account Enough For Rape Conviction

Following the FIR, the police investigated, recovered the deceased's body from his residence, seized the alleged weapon, collected other articles, and obtained forensic reports. The appellant's clothes were recovered from his uncle's house. The post-mortem report by Dr. R.K. Divya documented multiple incised wounds and identified the cause of death as shock from excessive bleeding due to injury to the right lung. A chargesheet was filed, and the Sessions Court convicted the appellant under Section 302 IPC, sentencing him to life imprisonment.

On appeal, the High Court of Chhattisgarh altered the conviction from Section 302 IPC to Section 304 Part I IPC, applying Exception 4 to Section 300 IPC on the basis of sudden quarrel and lack of premeditation, and reduced the sentence accordingly.

The appellant challenged the High Court's findings before the Supreme Court, contending that the conviction was wrongly based on an inadmissible confessional FIR and unsupported by other legal evidence. The State opposed the appeal, arguing that the appellant's conduct and the recovery of articles were relevant under Sections 8 and 27 of the Evidence Act.

The Supreme Court examined the admissibility of the FIR lodged by the accused. The Bench recorded: "A plain reading of the FIR indicates that it contains a confession by its maker i.e., the appellant-herein, regarding the commission of the alleged offence." Citing precedents, including Nisar Ali v. State of U.P., Faddi v. State of M.P., and Aghnoo Nagesia v. State of Bihar, the Court stated: "A confessional first information report cannot be used against the maker when he be an accused and necessarily cannot be used against a co-accused."

The Bench observed: "If the first information report 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." It held that the High Court erred in corroborating medical evidence with the contents of a confessional FIR.

On expert evidence, the Court recorded: "An accused cannot be held guilty of the offence of murder solely on the basis of medical evidence on record." It noted that most panch witnesses had turned hostile, and the prosecution had failed to prove panchnamas through the investigating officer. Consequently, there was no admissible discovery evidence under Section 27.

Regarding the State's reliance on Section 8, the Court cited A.N. Venkatesh v. State of Karnataka, observing: "While the conduct of an accused may be a relevant fact under Section 8, it cannot, by itself, serve as the sole basis for conviction, especially in a grave charge such as murder."

Also Read: Disaffiliation Of State Golf Association Quashed | Meghalaya High Court Says Clause 66 Allows Arbitration But Natural Justice Breach Warrants Writ Intervention

On the High Court's application of Exception 4 to Section 300 IPC, the Bench stated: "The deceased was unarmed... The deceased was absolutely harmless when the appellant inflicted injuries all over his body indiscriminately." It held that the facts did not satisfy all ingredients of Exception 4, though it refrained from substituting its finding with a conviction under Section 302 IPC in the absence of a State appeal.

The Court allowed the appeal, stating: "In the result, this appeal succeeds and is hereby allowed." It directed: "The appellant is acquitted of all the charges, and he be set free forthwith if not required in any other case. The bail bonds stand discharged, if any." The Registry was instructed: "The Registry shall circulate one copy each of this judgment to all the High Courts."

Advocates Representing the Parties:

For Petitioner(s): Mr. A. Sirajudeen, Sr. Adv. Ms. Manjeet Chawla, AOR

For Respondent(s): Ms. Sugandha Jain, Standing Counsel for State of Chhattisgarh, Adv. Mr. Prabodh Kumar, AOR

Case Title: Narayan Yadav v. State of Chhattisgarh

Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 927

Case Number: Criminal Appeal No. 3343 of 2025 (Arising out of SLP (Crl.) No. 10595 of 2025)

Bench: Justice J.B. Pardiwala, Justice R. Mahadevan