Summary
Conviction of the appellant under Section 304 Part I IPC (altered by the High Court from Section 302) was set aside and he was acquitted. The FIR he had himself lodged was a confession to a police officer and wholly inadmissible under Section 25 of the Evidence Act, so the High Court could not corroborate the medical evidence with it; medical evidence is only advisory and cannot alone sustain a murder conviction; no discovery under Section 27 was proved; and conduct under Section 8 cannot by itself found a conviction. The Court also explained why Exception 4 to Section 300 could not have applied where the deceased was unarmed.
Issues
- Whether a confessional FIR lodged by the accused himself is admissible against him, and to what extent, under Sections 8, 21, 25 and 27 of the Evidence Act, 1872.
- Whether a conviction for homicide can rest on the medical evidence of the post-mortem doctor alone, the panch witnesses having turned hostile and the panchnamas not having been proved.
- Whether the accused's conduct in lodging the FIR and pointing out the body and his clothes, relevant under Section 8, can by itself sustain a conviction.
- Whether the High Court correctly invoked Exception 4 to Section 300 IPC to alter the conviction from Section 302 to Section 304 Part I.
Provisions considered
- Section 25, Indian Evidence Act, 1872No confession made to a police officer may be proved against an accused. Following Nisar Ali, Faddi and Aghnoo Nagesia, an FIR lodged by the accused that amounts to a confession is hit by the section in its entirety, including every admission of an incriminating fact it contains; the High Court erred in reading the appellant's confessional FIR into evidence and corroborating the medical evidence with it. (¶¶ 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26)
- Section 21 (read with Section 17), Indian Evidence Act, 1872A non-confessional FIR by the accused is admissible against him as an admission; but where the FIR is confessional, no part can be severed and used as a non-confessional admission. (¶¶ 19, 21, 23, 24)
- Sections 145 and 157, Indian Evidence Act, 1872An FIR is not substantive evidence and can only corroborate or contradict its maker; neither use is possible when the maker is the accused unless he offers himself as a witness. (¶¶ 17, 23)
- Section 8, Indian Evidence Act, 1872The fact that the accused lodged the FIR soon after the offence, and his pointing out of the body and his clothes, is relevant as conduct (A.N. Venkatesh), but conduct is only one circumstance and cannot by itself be the sole basis of conviction on a charge of murder. (¶¶ 24, 30, 35, 36)
- Section 27, Indian Evidence Act, 1872The section permits proof only of so much of the information from an accused in custody as relates distinctly to a fact thereby discovered; the Court listed its five conditions. No witness deposed to the exact statement said to have led to any discovery, the panch witnesses turned hostile and the investigating officer did not prove the panchnamas, whose contents are not substantive evidence (Murli); so no discovery was established. (¶¶ 24, 29, 31, 32, 33, 34)
- Section 300, Exception 4, Indian Penal Code, 1860Culpable homicide is not murder if committed without premeditation in a sudden fight in the heat of passion upon a sudden quarrel, without the offender taking undue advantage or acting in a cruel or unusual manner. All ingredients must co-exist and a fight requires mutual combat; the High Court considered only the first limb and ignored that the deceased was unarmed and harmless when injuries were inflicted indiscriminately, so Exception 4 could not apply. (¶¶ 39, 40, 41, 42, 46, 47, 49)
- Sections 299, 300, 302 and 304, Indian Penal Code, 1860The Court restated the three-stage approach (causation, culpable homicide under Section 299, murder under Section 300 and its exceptions) and the distinction between Parts I and II of Section 304 (Rayavarapu Punnayya); if any exception was to be considered on these facts it was Exception 1 (grave and sudden provocation), not Exception 4, though the Court did not decide it as there was no legal evidence at all. (¶¶ 38, 43, 44, 48, 50)
Held
- A statement in an FIR by an accused cannot be used against a co-accused; against its maker it cannot be used if inculpatory, nor for corroboration or contradiction unless he testifies. Its only use is as an admission under Section 21 against the maker alone, and only if the admission does not amount to a confession. A confessional FIR to a police officer is inadmissible under Section 25, except that the fact of lodging it is relevant as conduct under Section 8 and any information leading to discovery is admissible under Section 27. (¶¶ 17, 20, 23, 24)
- The High Court's first error was to read the contents of the appellant's confessional FIR into evidence and corroborate the medical evidence with it; once the FIR is excluded by Section 25, only the medical evidence and the panch witnesses' testimony remain. (¶¶ 15, 25, 26)
- A doctor is an expert witness, not a witness of fact; expert evidence is advisory and its credibility depends on the reasons and data supporting it. An accused cannot be convicted of murder solely on medical evidence, and the identity of the assailant cannot be inferred from the post-mortem doctor's testimony. (¶¶ 27, 28)
- Where panch witnesses turn hostile the prosecution may prove the panchnamas through the investigating officer, but he too failed to do so; as no witness deposed to the exact statement that led to any discovery, nothing relevant and admissible under Section 27 was established. (¶¶ 29, 31, 34)
- Conduct of the accused relevant under Section 8 (going to the police station, pointing out the body and his clothes) is only one circumstance to be weighed with other evidence; it cannot alone justify a conviction, especially on a grave charge such as murder, in the absence of cogent supporting evidence. (¶¶ 30, 35, 36)
- Exception 4 to Section 300 requires all its ingredients: no premeditation, a sudden fight (mutual combat, which takes two), heat of passion upon a sudden quarrel, no undue (unfair) advantage, and no cruel or unusual conduct, the fight being with the deceased. Where the deceased was unarmed and the accused inflicted indiscriminate knife injuries all over his body, there was no mutual fight and the accused took undue advantage, so Exception 4 was wrongly applied; if any exception merited consideration it was Exception 1. (¶¶ 40, 41, 42, 49, 50)
- Though the State had not appealed the acquittal under Section 302 and the Court could not have interfered with the erroneous application of Exception 4 had it dismissed the appeal, it explained the error for guidance; on the facts the case was one of no legal evidence, warranting acquittal. (¶¶ 37, 50, 51)
Result
Appeal allowed; High Court judgment dated 16.01.2025 in Criminal Appeal No.1538 of 2021 set aside; appellant acquitted of all charges and to be set free forthwith if not required in any other case; bail bonds discharged. Registry to circulate the judgment to all High Courts.