Confession of Co-Accused Cannot Be Thrown Out at Discharge Stage Merely as Inadmissible: Andhra Pradesh High Court Clarifies Scope Under Sections 438 and 442 BNSS

"Strong suspicion based on chargesheet material is sufficient to frame charges — Whether confession to police is admissible under Section 25 or saved by Section 27 of the Evidence Act is a matter for trial, not discharge" - In a detailed and significant ruling High Court of Andhra Pradesh dismissed a Criminal Revision Petition challenging the rejection of a discharge application under the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023. The Court, speaking through Hon’ble Dr. Justice Y. Lakshmana Rao, held that the evidentiary admissibility of a co-accused’s confession to police cannot be determined at the stage of framing charges. The decision came in Criminal Revision Case No. 892 of 2025, in which the petitioner—Accused No.11 in a murder case—sought discharge on the ground that his name was not in the FIR, nor in the statements of eyewitnesses, and that the only material implicating him was a confession made by Accused No.4 to the police.

The Court rejected this argument, holding that at the discharge stage, the court need not undertake a detailed scrutiny of the admissibility of evidence, and that strong suspicion arising from the material collected during investigation is enough to proceed to trial.

“Court is Not a Post Office at Discharge Stage — Must Sift Material for Strong Suspicion, Not Test Guilt or Admissibility”: Justice Y. Lakshmana Rao Applies Settled Principles

The petitioner argued that since his name was not mentioned in the FIR or in any Section 161 CrPC statements by eyewitnesses, and since the confession made by co-accused No.4 before the police is hit by Section 25 of the Indian Evidence Act, he should be discharged. His counsel submitted that the chargesheet included his name solely on the basis of this inadmissible confession. It was further pointed out that neither the complainant (LW.1) nor any eyewitness (LWs.2 to 7) made any reference to the petitioner’s presence at the scene of the crime or his role in the conspiracy.

In response, the State argued that the law does not permit a detailed examination of evidentiary admissibility at the pre-trial stage. The Assistant Public Prosecutor stressed that the question of whether the confession is hit by Section 25 or falls within the exception of Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act must be left for determination at the final stage of trial, after all evidence is tested and led in court.

Dr. Justice Y. Lakshmana Rao, agreeing with the State's position, observed, “Whether such confession is valid or not, admissible or inadmissible, can only be looked into after a full-fledged trial is taken up.” The Court added that “as rightly pointed out by the learned Trial Court, it is a matter of full-fledged trial to appreciate the contentions of the Petitioner.”

Referring extensively to precedent, including Union of India v. Prafulla Kumar Samal, (1979) 3 SCC 4, State of Bihar v. Ramesh Singh and P. Vijayan v. State of Kerala, the Court reiterated the position that the test at the stage of discharge is not whether the evidence will eventually prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt, but whether it discloses a prima facie case or strong suspicion of involvement.

Quoting from Prafulla Kumar Samal, the Court recalled that “The Judge is not a mere post-office to frame the charge at the behest of the prosecution, but has to exercise his judicial mind... he has merely to sift the evidence in order to find out whether or not there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused.”

The Court further held that the “sufficiency of grounds” includes material collected during investigation which may not be conclusive but raises strong suspicion. “At this stage, either this Court or the Sessions Court cannot appreciate the contention of the Petitioner that the confession given by Accused No.4 before the Investigating Officer cannot be looked into as it is hit by Section 25 of the Act,” the judgment noted.

“Recovery of Weapon, Chargesheet Allegations, and Prior Criminal History — Taken Together, Justify Continuation of Trial Against Accused No.11”

The Court also considered the fact that weapons allegedly used in the offence were recovered from the possession of the petitioner and other accused under a seizure panchanama. This, coupled with the petitioner’s past involvement in a prior criminal case and his status as a suspect sheet holder, was held sufficient to sustain the inference of strong suspicion.

Noting that the petitioner is the son of Accused No.12, who is alleged to have conspired in the murder, the Court remarked, “Considering the entire facts and circumstances of the case, the request of the Petitioner to discharge him is not found convincing and reasonable.”

The Court found no material irregularity or illegality in the Special Sessions Judge's reasoning and confirmed the order dated 25.07.2025, refusing to discharge the petitioner from prosecution in S.C. No. 218/2020.

“Confession May Be Inadmissible Under Section 25, But Not Entirely Irrelevant — Relevance Under Section 27 is a Matter of Trial”: Andhra Pradesh High Court

Emphasizing the subtle distinction in evidentiary law, the Court observed that a confession made to a police officer is generally inadmissible under Section 25, but may still be relevant under Section 27 if it leads to discovery. The Court held, “Whether it is relevant under Section 27 of the Act or any other provisions cannot be determined at this juncture.”

Further quoting from State of Gujarat v. Dilipsinh Kishorsinh Rao (2023) and State of Rajasthan v. Ashok Kumar Kashyap (2021), the Court reiterated that at the stage of considering discharge, the judge is to “proceed on an assumption that the material brought on record by the prosecution is true and evaluate said material in order to determine whether the facts taken on their face value disclose the ingredients necessary for the alleged offence.”

Accordingly, the Court held that the trial must proceed and that the admissibility of the confession, its corroboration, and the reliability of recoveries can only be evaluated after evidence is led during trial.

The Criminal Revision Case was dismissed, and the order of the Trial Court refusing discharge was upheld. The Court held that the petitioner failed to establish any material irregularity or perversity in the lower court’s order. The Court concluded, “The Petitioner has not made out a prima facie case for his discharge. Hence, the Criminal Revision Case is liable to be dismissed.”

Date of Decision: 09 October 2025