Confessional FIR Admissible Only for Narrow Purposes, Not as Sole Basis for Conviction: SC

The Supreme Court has reiterated that a First Information Report of a confessional nature, lodged by an accused, cannot be used in evidence against him except for very limited purposes, setting aside the conviction of a Chhattisgarh man in a 2019 murder case.

A bench of Justices J.B. Pardiwala and R. Mahadevan held, “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.”

Court said 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,” noting that Section 25 of the Evidence Act barred the use of such confessions made to a police officer.

The ruling came in an appeal by Narayan Yadav, who had informed police in September 2019 that he killed his friend Ram Babu Sharma after a drunken quarrel.

The High Court had altered his conviction from murder (Section 302 IPC) to culpable homicide not amounting to murder (Section 304 Part I IPC) by invoking Exception 4 to Section 300 IPC.

However, the Top Court found that “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.”

The bench also emphasised the limits of medical opinion, “An accused cannot be held guilty of the offence of murder solely on the basis of medical evidence on record. A doctor is not a witness of fact… The evidence of such an expert is of an advisory character.”

Court stressed that while an accused’s conduct may be relevant under Section 8 of the Evidence Act, “it cannot, by itself, serve as the sole basis for conviction, especially in a grave charge such as murder.”

In support of its conclusions, the bench referred to Nisar Ali v. State of U.P. (AIR 1957 SC 366), Faddi v. State of M.P. (AIR 1964 SC 1850) and Aghnoo Nagesia v. State of Bihar (AIR 1966 SC 119), which collectively establish that a confessional FIR is inadmissible against its maker, and cannot be split into admissible and inadmissible parts. It also cited A.N. Venkatesh v. State of Karnataka (2005) 7 SCC 714 on the relevance of conduct under Section 8.

Allowing the appeal, the Supreme Court acquitted the appellant of all charges, ordering his release if not required in any other case.

Case Title: Narayan Yadav v. State of Chhattisgarh

Judgment date: August 5, 2025

Bench: Justices J.B. Pardiwala and R. Mahadevan