A confessional FIR given by one accused cannot be used against the other accused including the maker further contents of such FIR cannot be read in evidence

Appeal

Appeal against the judgment altering the conviction by Hon’ble High Court

2. This appeal arises from the judgment and order passed by the High Court of Chhattisgarh in Criminal Appeal No. 1538 of 2021 dated 16.01.2025 (hereinafter referred to as “Impugned Judgment”) by which the appeal preferred by the appellant herein against the judgment and order of conviction passed by the Trial Court came to be partly allowed by altering the conviction of the appellant herein from Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short, “the IPC”) to Section 304 Part I of the IPC.

Facts

Factual matrix

3. The appellant (original accused) himself lodged a First Information Report (FIR) dated 27.09.2019 with Korba Kotwali Police Station, District Korba, which came to be registered for the offence punishable under Section 302 of the IPC. The FIR reads thus:

“…………………”

Investigation and recovery of dead body

4. Upon registration of the FIR, lodged by the appellant himself, at the concerned Police Station referred to above, the investigation commenced. It appears that the investigating officer, after arresting the appellant, took him to the house of the deceased. After breaking open the house, the dead body of the deceased was found lying in a pool of blood inside his residence. A panchnama of the scene of offence was prepared in the presence of panch witnesses. The knife allegedly used by the appellant to inflict injuries on the deceased was recovered from the place of occurrence, i.e., the deceased’s house. The clothes and other articles were also collected in presence of the panch witnesses by preparing a panchnama, and were sent to the Forensic Science Laboratory for chemical analysis. The clothes of the appellant were discovered at his instance from the residence of his uncle, Rajnath Yadav, by drawing a panchnama.

Post-mortem report

6. The cause of death, as stated in the post-mortem report and duly proved by Dr. R.K. Divya (PW-10), was shock resulting from excessive bleeding from the right side of the chest and injury to the upper lobe of the right lung.

Final report & Sessions Trial

7. Upon completion of the investigation, chargesheet came to be filed by the investigating officer, and the filing of chargesheet for the offence enumerated above culminated in the Sessions Case No. 9 of 2020.

10. Upon completion of the recording of the oral evidence, further statement of the appellant was recorded under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. In his statement, the appellant claimed that he had been falsely implicated in the alleged crime and asserted his complete innocence.

Trial court convicted the appellant for murder

11. The Trial Court, upon overall appreciation of both oral as well as the documentary evidence on record, reached the conclusion that the prosecution had proved its case beyond reasonable doubt, and accordingly, it held the appellant guilty of the offence of murder and sentenced him to undergo life imprisonment.

High Court altered the conviction

12. The appellant being aggrieved by the judgment and order of conviction passed by the Trial Court, preferred an appeal before the High Court. The High Court partly allowed the appeal and altered the conviction of the appellant from Section 302 of the IPC to Section 304 Part I of the IPC, giving benefit of Exception 4 to Section 300 of the IPC.

13. In such circumstances referred to above the appellant is before this Court with the present appeal.

Anaylysis

14. Having heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties and having gone through the materials on record the only question that falls for our consideration is whether the High Court committed any error in passing the Impugned Judgment.

Errors in the judgment of the Hon’ble High Court

15. The entire judgment of the High Court could be termed as erroneous on several grounds. There are errors apparent on the face of the Impugned Judgment. The first mistake was that the High Court examined the medical evidence on record in detail and then proceeded to directly corroborate it with the contents of the FIR lodged by the appellant himself. In doing so, the High Court fully convinced itself that the appellant’s statements in the form of a confession, as contained in the FIR, were entirely corroborated by the medical evidence. Consequently, the Court concluded that the appellant had committed the alleged crime. In arriving at such a conclusion, the High Court overlooked some fundamental principles of criminal jurisprudence.

Confessional FIR is not Admissible in Evidence

16. The FIR was exhibited in evidence (Exhibit P-14) through the oral evidence of the investigating officer PW-9, Ashok Pandey. PW-9 proved his signature on the FIR and also identified the signature of the first informant i.e., the appellant-herein. However, the other contents of the FIR could not have been proved through the testimony of the investigating officer. 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.

17. A statement in an FIR can normally be used only to contradict its maker as provided in Section 145 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (for short, “the Act of 1872”), or to corroborate his evidence as envisaged in Section 157 of the Act of 1872. In a criminal trial, however, neither of these is possible as long as the maker of the statement is an accused in the case, unless he offers himself to be examined as a witness [See: Nisar Ali v. State of U.P., 1957 SCC OnLine SC 42]. J.L. Kapur, J. speaking for the three-Judge Bench in that decision has observed:

“A first information report is not a substantive piece of evidence and can only be used to corroborate the statement of the maker under Section 157, Evidence Act, or to contradict it under Section 145 of that Act. It cannot be used as evidence against the maker at the trial if he himself becomes an accused, nor to corroborate or contradict other witnesses. In this case, therefore, it is not evidence.” (Emphasis supplied)

18. The High Court failed to take into consideration two landmark decisions of this Court – one in Faddi v. State of M.P., 1964 SCC OnLine SC 123, and the other in Aghnoo Nagesia v. State of Bihar, 1965 SCC OnLine SC 109.

19. In Faddi (supra), this Court stated that:

“If the FIR given by the accused contains any admission as defined in Section 17 of the Evidence Act there is no bar in using such an admission against the maker thereof as permitted under Section 21 of the Act, provided such admission is not inculpatory in character. In the judgment their Lordships distinguished Nisar Ali case [AIR 1957 SC 366] in the following lines:

“But it appears to us that in the context in which the observation is made and in the circumstances, which we have verified from the record of that case, that the Sessions Judge had definitely held the first information report lodged by the co-accused who was acquitted to be inadmissible against Nisar Ali, and that the High Court did not refer to it at all in its judgment, this observation really refers to a first information report which is in the nature of a confession by the maker thereof. Of course, 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.” (Emphasis supplied)

20. In Aghnoo Nagesia (supra), this Court sounded a note of caution that when the statement in the FIR given by an accused contains incriminating materials and it is difficult to sift the exculpatory portion therefrom, the whole of it must be excluded from evidence.

21. In Faddi (supra), the issue before this Court was whether the FIR lodged by the accused himself therein was admissible in evidence. In the facts of the said case, this Court held that the objection to the admissibility of the FIR lodged by the appellant was not sound, as the FIR only contained a few admissions, and those admissions did not amount to a confession so as to render the entire FIR inadmissible in evidence. We quote the relevant observations made by this Court in Faddi (supra) as under:

“14 to 18”

22. We now proceed to look into the decision of this Court in Aghnoo Nagesia (supra). The following observations of this Court at paragraphs 9 to 18 are relevant and are quoted below:-

“9 to 18”

Confessional FIR given by one accused cannot be used against the other accused as well as the maker except it contains any admission

23. The legal position, therefore, is this – a statement contained in the FIR furnished by one of the accused in the case cannot, in any manner, be used against another accused. Even as against the accused who made it, the statement cannot be used if it is inculpatory in nature nor can it be used for the purpose of corroboration or contradiction unless its maker offers himself as a witness in the trial. The very limited use of it is, as an admission under Section 21 of the Act of 1872, against its maker alone, and only if the admission does not amount to a confession.

24. 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.

High Court committed error in reading the contents of confessional FIR in evidence

25. Thus, the first error that the High Court committed was to read the contents of the FIR lodged by the appellant into evidence. As observed earlier, the FIR lodged by the appellant amounts to a confession, and any confession made by an accused before the police is hit by Section 25 of the Act of 1872. There was no question at all for the High Court to seek corroboration of the medical evidence on record with the confessional part of the FIR lodged by the appellant.

26. Once we say that the contents of the FIR are hit by Section 25 of the Act of 1872, being a confession before a police officer, the only remaining evidence on record is the medical evidence and the oral evidence of the panch witnesses.

Evidence of an Expert Witness is only Advisory in Nature

Doctor is not a witness to fact but is being examined only to prove the contents of post post-mortem

28. The High Court should have been mindful of the fact that a doctor is not a witness of fact. A doctor is examined by the prosecution as a medical expert for the purpose of proving the contents of the post-mortem report and the medical certificates on record, if any. An expert witness is examined by the prosecution because of his specialized knowledge on certain subjects, which the judge may not be fully equipped to assess. The evidence of such an expert is of an advisory character. The credibility of the expert witness depends on the reasons provided in support of his conclusions, as well as the data and material forming the basis of those conclusions. An accused cannot be held guilty of the offence of murder solely on the basis of medical evidence on record. So far as the panch witnesses are concerned their depositions do not inspire any confidence.

Since panch witnesses turned hostile discovery was not proved

29. Most of the panch witnesses turned hostile. If at all, the public prosecutor wanted to prove the contents of the panchnamas after the panch witnesses turned hostile, he could have done so through the evidence of the investigating officer. However, the investigating officer also failed to prove the contents of the panchnamas in accordance with law. Thus, there is nothing on record by way of evidence relating to any discovery of fact is concerned. In other words, no discovery of fact at the instance of the appellant, relevant and admissible under Section 27 of the Act of 1872, has been established.

Discovery of fact explained

32. Section 27 of the Act of 1872 reads thus:

“27. How much of information received from accused may be proved.––Provided that, when any fact is deposed to as discovered inconsequence of information received from a person accused of any offence, in the custody of a police-officer, so much of such information, whether it amounts to a confession or not, as relates distinctly to the fact thereby discovered, may be proved.”

33. The conditions necessary for the applicability of Section 27 of the Act of 1872 are:

i. That consequent to the information given by the accused, it led to the discovery of some fact;

ii. The fact discovered must be one which was not within the knowledge of the police and the knowledge of the fact for the first time was derived from the information given by the accused;

iii. The discovery of a fact which is the direct outcome of such information;

iv. Only such portion of the information as connected with the said discovery is admissible;

v. The discovery of the fact must relate to the commission of some offence.

34. In the aforesaid context, we may refer to and rely upon the decision of this Court in Murli v. State of Rajasthan, reported in (2009) 9 SCC 417, which held that the contents of the panchnama are not the substantive piece of evidence. It reads thus;

“34. The contents of the panchnama are not the substantive evidence. The law is settled on that issue. What is substantive evidence is what has been stated by the panchas or the person concerned in the witness box.[…]” (Emphasis supplied)

35. In the aforesaid context, our attention was drawn to a decision of this Court in the case of A. N. Venkatesh & Anr. v. State of Karnataka, reported in (2005) 7 SCC 714, which states thus:

“9. By virtue of Section 8 of the Evidence Act, the conduct of the accused person is relevant, if such conduct influences or is influenced by any fact in issue or relevant fact. The evidence of the circumstance, simpliciter, that the accused pointed out to the police officer, the place where the dead body of the kidnapped boy was found and on their pointing out the body was exhumed, would be admissible as conduct under Section 8 irrespective of the fact whether the statement made by the accused contemporaneously with or antecedent to such conduct falls within the purview of Section 27 or not as held by this Court in Prakash Chand v. State (UT of Delhi) [Prakash Chand v. State (UT of Delhi), (1979) 3 SCC 90 : 1979 SCC (Cri) 656] . Even if we hold that the disclosure statement made by the appellantaccused (Exts. P-15 and P-16) is not admissible under Section 27 of the Evidence Act, still it is relevant under Section 8.” (Emphasis supplied)

Section 8 IEA cannot be used for sole basis for conviction

36. In this context, we deem it necessary to sound a note of caution. While the conduct of an accused may be a relevant fact under Section 8 of the Act of 1872, it cannot, by itself, serve as the sole basis for conviction, especially in a grave charge such as murder. Like any other piece of evidence, the conduct of the accused is merely one of the circumstances the court may consider, in conjunction with other direct or circumstantial evidence on record. To put it succinctly, although relevant, the accused’s conduct alone cannot justify a conviction in the absence of cogent and credible supporting evidence.

Incorrect application of Exception 4 to Section 300 of the IPC

37. We could have concluded the judgment at this stage by allowing the appeal and thereby acquitting the appellant of all the charges against him. However, we consider it necessary to make certain observations regarding Exception 4 to Section 300 of the IPC. We wish to explain why the High Court could not have invoked Exception 4 to Section 300 of the IPC and altered the conviction from Section 302 to 304 Part I of the IPC. Had there been any other oral or documentary evidence on record connecting the appellant herein with the alleged crime, we would have dismissed his appeal. Even while dismissing his appeal and holding him guilty of the offence of murder, we would not have been in a position to interfere with the erroneous application of Exception 4, as there is no appeal at the instance of the State challenging the acquittal under Section 302 of the IPC. Nevertheless, it is necessary to explain why the High Court committed an error in bringing the case within Exception 4 of Section 300 of the IPC.

Section 299 IPC: Culpable Homicide

38. Section 299 of the IPC explains culpable homicide as, causing death by doing an act with the intention of causing death, or with the intention of causing such bodily injury as is likely to cause death, or with the knowledge that the act complained of is likely to cause death. The first two categories require the intention to cause death, or the likelihood of causing death. While, the third category confines itself to the knowledge that the act complained of is likely to cause death. On the facts of this case, the offence of culpable homicide is clearly made out.

Section 300: Murder and its exception

39. Section 300 of the IPC explains murder and it provides that culpable homicide is murder if, the act by which the death is caused is done with the intention of causing death, or the act complained of is so imminently dangerous that it must in all probability cause death, or “such bodily injury as is likely to cause death”. There are some exceptions when culpable homicide is not murder and we are concerned with Exception 4 which reads:

“Exception 4. – Culpable homicide is not murder if it is committed without premeditation in a sudden fight in the heat of passion upon a sudden quarrel and without the offender having taken undue advantage or acted in a cruel or unusual manner.” Explanation. – It is immaterial in such cases which party offers the provocation or commits the first assault.”

Exception 4 to section 300 IPC applies in the absence of any premeditation

40. Exception 4 to Section 300 of the IPC applies in the absence of any premeditation. This is very clear from the words used in the provision itself. It contemplates that the sudden fight must occur in the heat of passion, or upon a sudden quarrel. The Exception deals with a case of provocation not covered by Exception 1, although it would have been more appropriately placed after that exception. It is founded upon the same principle, as both involve the absence of premeditation. However, while Exception 1 involves total deprivation of self-control, Exception 4 refers to that heat of passion which clouds a person’s sober reason and urges them to commit acts they would not otherwise commit. There is provocation in Exception 4, as there is in Exception 1, but the injury caused is not the direct consequence of that provocation. In fact, Exception 4 addresses cases where, notwithstanding that a blow may have been struck or provocation given at the outset of the dispute, regardless of how the quarrel originated, yet the subsequent conduct of both parties’ places them on an equal footing with respect to guilt.

Sudden fight and Exception 4

41. A “sudden fight” implies mutual provocation and the exchange of blows on both sides. In such cases, the homicide committed is clearly not attributable to unilateral provocation, nor can the entire blame be placed on one side. If it were, Exception 1 would be the more appropriate provision. There is no prior deliberation or intention to fight; the fight breaks out suddenly, and both parties are more or less to blame. One party may have initiated it, but had the other not aggravated the situation by their own conduct, it may not have escalated to such a serious level. In such scenarios, there is mutual provocation and aggravation, making it difficult to determine the precise share of blame attributable to each participant. The protection of Exception 4 may be invoked if death is caused: (a) without premeditation; (b) in a sudden fight; (c) without the offender having taken undue advantage or acted in a cruel or unusual manner; and (d) the fight must have been with the deceased.

42. To bring a case within Exception 4, all the ingredients mentioned therein must be satisfied. It is important to note that the term “fight” occurring in Exception 4 to Section 300 of the IPC is not defined in the IPC. A fight necessarily involves two parties – it takes two to make a fight. The heat of passion requires that there must be no time for the passions to cool, and in such case, the parties may have worked themselves into a fury due to a prior verbal altercation. A fight is a combat between two and more persons, whether with or without weapons. It is not possible to enunciate any general rule as to what constitutes a “sudden quarrel”. This is a question of fact, and whether a quarrel is sudden or not must necessarily depend upon the proved facts of each case. For the application of Exception 4, it is not enough to show that there was a sudden quarrel and no premeditation. It must also be shown that the offender did not take undue advantage or act in a cruel or unusual manner. The expression “undue advantage” as used in the provision means “unfair advantage”.

How to identify the offence as murder or not amounting to murder is explained

43. From the above conspectus, it emerges that whenever a court is confronted with the question whether the offence is “murder” or Page 29 of 35 “culpable homicide not amounting to murder”, it will be convenient to approach the problem in three stages. The question to be considered at the first stage is, whether the accused committed an act which caused the death of another person. Proof of a causal connection between the act of the accused and the resulting death leads to the second stage, for considering whether that act of the accused amounts to “culpable homicide” as defined in Section 299 of the IPC. If the answer to this question is, prima facie, found in the affirmative, the next stage involves considering the application of Section 300 of the IPC. At this stage, the court must determine whether the facts proved by the prosecution bring the case within the ambit of any of the four clauses of the definition of “murder” contained in Section 300. If the answer to this is in the negative, the offence would be “culpable homicide not amounting to murder”, punishable under either the first or the second part of Section 304, depending respectively on whether the second or the third clause of Section 299 is applicable. However, if the answer is in the positive, but the case falls within any of the exceptions enumerated in Section 300, the offence would still be “culpable homicide not amounting to murder”, punishable under the Part I of Section 304 of the IPC.

44. In State of Andhra Pradesh v. Rayavarapu Punnayya & Anr., reported in (1976) 4 SCC 382, this Court, while drawing a distinction between Section 302 and Section 304, held as under:-

“12. In the scheme of the Penal Code, “culpable homicide” is genus and “murder” its specie. All “murder” is “culpable homicide” but not vice- versa. Speaking generally, “culpable homicide” sans “special characteristics of murder”, is “culpable homicide not amounting to murder”. For the purpose of fixing punishment, proportionate to the gravity of this generic offence, the Code practically recognises three degrees of culpable homicide. The first is, what may be called, “culpable homicide of the first degree”. This is the greatest form of culpable homicide, which is defined in Section 300 as “murder”. The second may be termed as “culpable homicide of the second degree”. This is punishable under the first part of Section 304. Then, there is “culpable homicide of the third degree”. This is the lowest type of culpable homicide and the punishment provided for it is, also, the lowest among the punishments provided for the three grades. Culpable homicide of this degree is punishable under the second part of Section 304.” (Emphasis supplied)

45. In Budhi Singh v. State of Himachal Pradesh, reported in (2012) 13 SCC 663, this Court has held as under:-

“18. The doctrine of sudden and grave provocation is incapable of rigid construction leading to or stating any principle of universal application. This will always have to depend on the facts of a given case. While applying this principle, the primary obligation of the court is to examine from the point of view of a person of reasonable prudence if there was such grave and sudden provocation so as to reasonably conclude that it was possible to commit the offence of culpable homicide, and as per the facts, was not a culpable homicide amounting to murder. An offence resulting from grave and sudden provocation would normally mean that a person placed in such circumstances could lose selfcontrol but only temporarily and that too, in proximity to the time of provocation. The provocation could be an act or series of acts done by the deceased to the accused resulting in inflicting of injury. Another test that is applied more often than not is that the behaviour of the assailant was that of a reasonable person. A fine distinction has to be kept in mind between sudden and grave provocation resulting in sudden and temporary loss of selfcontrol and the one which inspires an actual intention to kill. Such act should have been done during the continuation of the state of mind and the time for such person to kill and reasons to regain the dominion over the mind. Once there is premeditated act with the intention to kill, it will obviously fall beyond the scope of culpable homicide not amounting to murder…..”

46. In the case of Kikar Singh v. State of Rajasthan, reported in (1993) 4 SCC 238, this Court held as under:-

“8. The counsel attempted to bring the case within Exception 4. For its application all the conditions enumerated therein must be satisfied. The act must be committed without premeditation in a sudden fight in the heat of passion; (2) upon a sudden quarrel; (3) without the offender’s having taken undue advantage; (4) and the accused had not acted in a cruel or unusual manner. Therefore, there must be a mutual combat or exchanging blows on each other. And however slight the first blow, or provocation, every fresh blow becomes a fresh provocation. The blood is already heated or warms up at every subsequent stroke. The voice of reason is heard on neither side in the heat of passion. Therefore, it is difficult to apportion between them respective degrees of blame with reference to the state of things at the commencement of the fray but it must occur as a consequence of a sudden fight i.e. mutual combat and not one side track. It matters not what the cause of the quarrel is, whether real or imaginary, or who draws or strikes first. The strike of the blow must be without any intention to kill or seriously injure the other. If two men start fighting and one of them is unarmed while the other uses a deadly weapon, the one who uses such weapon must be held to have taken an undue advantage denying him the entitlement to Exception 4. True the number of wounds is not the criterion, but the position of the accused and the deceased with regard to their arms used, the manner of combat must be kept in mind when applying Exception 4. When the deceased was not armed but the accused was and caused injuries to the deceased with fatal results, the Exception 4 engrafted to Section 300 is excepted and the offences committed would be one of murder.

9. The occasion for sudden quarrel must not only be sudden but the party assaulted must be on an equal footing in point of defence, at least at the onset. This is specially so where the attack is made with dangerous weapons. Where the deceased was unarmed and did not cause any injury to the accused even following a sudden quarrel if the accused has inflicted fatal blows on the deceased, Exception 4 is not attracted and commission must be one of murder punishable under Section 302. Equally for attracting Exception 4 it is necessary that blows should be exchanged even if they do not all find their target. Even if the fight is unpremeditated and sudden, yet if the instrument or manner of retaliation be greatly disproportionate to the offence given, and cruel and dangerous in its nature, the accused cannot be protected under Exception 4….”

47. This Court, in the case of Surain Singh v. State of Punjab, reported in (2017) 5 SCC 796 has observed that:

“The help of Exception 4 can be invoked if death is caused (a) without premeditation, (b) in a sudden fight, (c) without the offenders having taken undue advantage or acted in a cruel or unusual manner, and (d) the fight must have been with the person killed. To bring a case within Exception 4 all the ingredients mentioned in it must be found. It is to be noted that the “fight” occurring in Exception 4 to Section 300, IPC is not defined in IPC……… A fight is a combat between two and more persons whether with or without weapons. It is not possible to enunciate any general rule as to what shall be deemed to be a sudden quarrel. It is a question of fact and whether a quarrel is sudden or not must necessarily depend upon the proved facts of each case. For the application of Exception 4, it is not sufficient to show that there was a sudden quarrel and there was no premeditation. It must further be shown that the offender has not taken undue advantage or acted in a cruel or unusual manner. The expression “undue advantage” as used in the provision means “unfair advantage”.”

48. Section 304 of the IPC prescribes the punishment for culpable homicide not amounting to murder. Part I of this Section provides that if the act by which death is caused is done with the intention of causing death, or causing such bodily injury as is likely to cause death, then the punishment may extend up to imprisonment for life. On the other hand, Part II of Section 304 provides that if the offending act is done with the knowledge that it is likely to cause death, but without any intention to cause death or to cause such bodily injury as is likely to cause death, then the punishment may extend to imprisonment for 10 years.

49. The High Court considered only the first part of Exception 4 to Section 300 of the IPC. This part refers to the absence of premeditation in a sudden fight arising from a sudden quarrel in a heat of passion. However, it does not end there. The exception further requires that the offender must not have taken undue advantage or acted in a cruel or unusual manner. Having regard to the manner in which the assault was carried out, could it not be said that the offender i.e., the appellant-herein took undue advantage and also could be said to have acted in a cruel or unusual manner. The deceased was unarmed, it was not mutual fight between two individuals that would bring the case within the ambit of Exception 4. The deceased was absolutely harmless when the appellant inflicted injuries all over his body indiscriminately.

50. Therefore, if at all the High Court intended to extend the benefit of any of the Exceptions to Section 300 of the IPC, it ought to have considered Exception 1 of Section 300 of the IPC. However, it is not necessary for us to delve into Exception 1 i.e., grave and sudden provocation since, we have already reached the conclusion that the case in hand is, one of no legal evidence and therefore, the appellant deserves to be acquitted. We refer to Exception 1 merely to illustrate that, if at all, it was this exception that could have been examined. It is alleged that while the appellant and the deceased were consuming alcohol at the deceased’s residence, the appellant showed the deceased a photograph of his girlfriend. The deceased allegedly made an obscene remark, “get your girlfriend to my place and leave her with me for one night.” Such a statement might have provoked the appellant, who then picked up a vegetable-cutting knife lying in one corner of the house and inflicted injuries upon the deceased. This aspect could have been considered in that context.

Conclusion

Appellant acquitted

51. In the overall view of the matter, we are convinced that the Impugned Judgement passed by the High Court of Chhattisgarh in Criminal Appeal No. 1538 of 2021 dated 16.01.2025 is not sustainable in law.

52. In the result, this appeal succeeds and is hereby allowed. 53. 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.

Circulate to all High Courts

54. The Registry shall circulate one copy each of this judgment to all the High Courts.   

Judgments relied Nisar Ali v. State of U.P., 1957 SCC OnLine SC 42 (Cited to establish that an FIR is not a substantive piece of evidence and cannot be used against the maker if they become an accused).

• Faddi v. State of M.P., 1964 SCC OnLine SC 123 (Cited regarding the admissibility of an FIR containing admissions that do not amount to a confession).
• Aghnoo Nagesia v. State of Bihar, 1965 SCC OnLine SC 109 (Cited as a cautionary note regarding the exclusion of an entire confessional statement if it contains incriminating material that cannot be sifted from exculpatory portions).
• Dal Singh v. King Emperor, LR 44 IA 137 (Cited from the Privy Council, holding that a non-confessional report to the police is admissible as an admission).
• Pakala Narayanaswami v. Emperor, 66 Ind App 66 (Cited from the Judicial Committee, regarding the definition of “confession”).
• Palvinder Kaur v. State of Punjab, 1953 SCR 94 (Cited as approving the observations on the definition of confession from Pakala Narayanaswami).
• State of U. P. v. Deoman Upadhyaya, (1961) 1 SCR 14 (Cited regarding the definition of confession).
• Hanumant Govind v. State of M. P., 1952 SCR 1091 (Cited on the principle that the whole of an admission, including the exculpatory part, must be tendered in evidence).
• Murli v. State of Rajasthan, (2009) 9 SCC 417 Cited to confirm that the contents of a panchnama are not substantive evidence).
• A. N. Venkatesh & Anr. v. State of Karnataka, (2005) 7 SCC 714 (Cited on the admissibility of the accused’s conduct under Section 8 of the Evidence Act).
• Prakash Chand v. State (UT of Delhi), (1979) 3 SCC 90 (Cited within A. N. Venkatesh, relating to conduct under Section 8).
• State of Andhra Pradesh v. Rayavarapu Punnayya & Anr., (1976) 4 SCC 382 (Cited for drawing a distinction between culpable homicide and murder).
• Budhi Singh v. State of Himachal Pradesh, (2012) 13 SCC 663 (Cited for discussing the doctrine of sudden and grave provocation).
• Kikar Singh v. State of Rajasthan, (1993) 4 SCC 238 (Cited on the conditions for applying Exception 4 to Section 300 IPC, particularly concerning undue advantage).
• Surain Singh v. State of Punjab, (2017) 5 SCC 796 (Cited on the necessary ingredients to invoke Exception 4 to Section 300 IPC).

Acts and Sections

Indian Penal Code (IPC), 1860:

• Section 300: Defines Murder, with the Court particularly focusing on:
  • Exception 1 to Section 300: Relates to Grave and Sudden Provocation. (The Court noted this was the only exception that could have potentially applied based on the facts).
  • Exception 4 to Section 300: Relates to a death caused in a sudden fight in the heat of passion, without premeditation or undue advantage. (The Court found the High Court incorrectly applied this exception).
• Section 302: Prescribes the Punishment for Murder.
• Section 304: Relates to Culpable Homicide not amounting to Murder.
• Section 323: Relates to voluntarily causing hurt.
• Section 324: Relates to voluntarily causing hurt by dangerous weapons or means.

The Indian Evidence Act, 1872:

• Section 8: Relates to the relevance of motive, preparation, and previous or subsequent conduct. (The Court discussed its implication for the accused’s conduct).
• Section 25: Prohibits Confession to Police Officer from being proved against the person. (Central to the Court’s finding that the Confessional FIR was inadmissible).
• Section 27: Deals with How much of information received from accused may be proved. (The Court discussed its application in relation to disclosures made by the appellant).

Party

Narayan Yadav v. State of Chhattisgarh - Criminal Appeal No. 3343 of 2025 (Arising out SLP (Crl.) No. 10595 of 2025) - 2025 INSC 927 - August 6, 2006 Hon’ble Mr. Justice J.B. Pardiwala Hon’ble Mr. Justice R. Mahadevan.