Confessional FIR Before Police ‘Absolutely Inadmissible’: Supreme Court Acquits Man Convicted Solely on His Own Confession”

“Conviction Cannot Rest on Confessional FIR—‘Expert Medical Evidence Only Advisory, Not Substantive Proof’, In a strongly-worded and precedent-reinforcing decision, the Supreme Court of India acquitted Narayan Yadav, who had been convicted of murder based mainly on his own confessional FIR before the police. The Court, comprising Justice J.B. Pardiwala and Justice R. Mahadevan, held:

“A confessional first information report made by an accused before the police is absolutely inadmissible in evidence under Section 25 of the Evidence Act and cannot be used for corroboration or contradiction unless the accused testifies at the trial. A conviction resting on such a confession is legally unsustainable.”

With this, the Court set aside the conviction and sentence imposed by the High Court of Chhattisgarh and the Trial Court, emphasizing that the High Court had committed a grave error in treating the accused’s confessional FIR as substantive evidence.

 ‘Conviction Built on Confession—No Other Evidence’

The case stemmed from a dramatic set of events:
Narayan Yadav, the appellant, himself lodged an FIR at Korba Kotwali Police Station on 27.09.2019, confessing in detail to having killed Ram Babu Sharma following an alcohol-fueled quarrel. He described how, in a fit of rage over an offensive remark about his girlfriend, he inflicted fatal knife wounds, bludgeoned the victim with a log, covered the body, and fled the scene. The police, relying extensively on this FIR, recovered the body and several articles and pressed charges under Section 302 IPC.

At trial, however, almost all key witnesses—including panch witnesses—turned hostile or failed to support the prosecution. The medical evidence confirmed homicide, but could not by itself implicate the accused.

Despite these glaring deficiencies, the Sessions Court convicted Yadav for murder. On appeal, the High Court substituted conviction for “culpable homicide not amounting to murder” under Section 304 Part I IPC, after applying Exception 4 to Section 300 IPC. Both courts had anchored their findings on the accused’s own confession in the FIR and the supporting medical evidence.

Confessional FIR Is Not Admissible—Section 25, Evidence Act

The Supreme Court, drawing extensively on the classic jurisprudence from Nisar Ali v. State of U.P., Aghnoo Nagesia v. State of Bihar, and Faddi v. State of M.P., reiterated the “absolute bar” on using a confession made to police as evidence against the maker:

“Section 25 of the Evidence Act is imperative. 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… The fullest effect must be given to this bar.”

“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.”

The Court faulted the High Court for directly “corroborating” the medical evidence with the accused’s confession in the FIR, declaring such an approach “fundamentally unsound.”

 ‘Medical Evidence Is Only Advisory’—Not Enough for Conviction

The Court further clarified the role of expert evidence:

“A doctor is not a witness of fact. An accused cannot be held guilty solely on the basis of medical evidence. The evidence of an expert is only advisory in nature; it must be corroborated by reliable direct or circumstantial evidence.”

Here, medical testimony confirmed cause of death but could not directly connect the appellant to the offence in the absence of substantive, admissible evidence.

 ‘Discovery Evidence Not Proved as per Law’—Sections 27 and 8, Evidence Act

The prosecution had sought to rely on the appellant’s conduct—his pointing out the body and the articles—as evidence of guilt. The Supreme Court noted:

“While the conduct of an accused may be relevant under Section 8, it cannot by itself serve as the sole basis for conviction, especially for a grave charge such as murder. Discovery evidence under Section 27 was not established in accordance with law—the panchnamas were not proved through proper witnesses and most panch witnesses turned hostile.”

Exception 4 to Section 300 IPC—‘High Court Erred in Its Application’

The Supreme Court found the High Court had misapplied Exception 4 to Section 300 (sudden fight, no premeditation):

“A ‘sudden fight’ implies mutual provocation and an exchange of blows. The deceased was unarmed, there was no mutual combat, and the appellant inflicted injuries all over the body indiscriminately. The requirements of Exception 4—no undue advantage, no cruel or unusual manner—were not met.”

 ‘Acquittal Was the Only Option’

Setting aside the High Court’s judgment, the Supreme Court declared:

“In the overall view of the matter, we are convinced that the judgment of the High Court…is not sustainable in law. The appellant is acquitted of all charges and be set free forthwith if not required in any other case.”

The Court also directed its decision to be circulated to all High Courts, signaling the significance of this ruling.

“A confessional first information report cannot be used against the maker when he be an accused… The fullest effect must be given to the bar imposed by Section 25 of the Evidence Act.”

“The conduct of the accused is only one of the circumstances the court may consider—by itself, it cannot justify a conviction in the absence of cogent and credible supporting evidence.”

“An accused cannot be held guilty solely on the basis of medical evidence. The expert’s role is only advisory in nature.”

Date of Decision: 05.08.2025