LexNARAYAN YADAV versus STATE OF CHHATTISGARH
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2025] 8 S.C.R. 568 : 2025 INSC 927 Narayan Yadav v. State of Chhattisgarh (Criminal Appeal No. 3343 of 2025) 05 August 2025 [J.B. Pardiwala* and R. Mahadevan, JJ.] Issue for Consideration Whether the High Court erred in passing the impugned judgment relying on the confessional FIR filed by the appellant-accused himself and the medical evidence to uphold his conviction, however, altering it from s.302, IPC to s.304 Part I. Headnotes† Evidence Act, 1872 – s.25 – Penal Code, 1860 – ss.302, 304 Part I – Confessional FIR, not admissible in evidence – Appellant-accused himself lodged FIR confessing the murder of the deceased in a drunken quarrel after the deceased allegedly made an obscene remark about the appellant’s girlfriend – Convicted u/s.302, IPC – High Court relied on the confessional FIR and medical evidence to uphold conviction, however, it was altered from s.302, IPC to s.304 Part I, giving benefit of Exception 4 to s.300 – Sustainability: Held: Not sustainable – Confessional FIR is not admissible in evidence – Contents of the FIR are hit by s.25, Evidence Act, being a confession before a police officer – 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 u/s.8, Evidence Act – High Court erred in reading the contents of the FIR lodged by the appellant into evidence – 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 – Further, the High Court should have been mindful of the fact that a doctor is not a witness of fact – Evidence of such an expert is of an advisory character – An accused cannot be held guilty of the offence of murder solely on the basis of medical evidence on record – Furthermore, the depositions of the panch witnesses do not inspire any confidence – * Author [2025] 8 S.C.R. 569 Narayan Yadav v. State of Chhattisgarh Most of them turned hostile – No discovery of fact at the instance of the appellant, relevant and admissible u/s.27, Evidence Act, was established – Also, the High Court erred in invoking Exception 4 to s.300, IPC – Appellant acquitted. [Paras 24, 25, 28, 29, 52] Penal Code, 1860 – Exception 4 to s.300 – When cannot be invoked – Discussed. [Paras 40-43, 48-50] Evidence Act, 1872 – ss.27, 8 – Implication of – Conditions necessary for the applicability of s.27 – Discussed. [Paras 33, 36] Evidence – Of expert witness – Nature – Advisory: Held: 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. [Para 28] Case Law Cited Nisar Ali v. State of U.P. [1957] 1 SCR 657 : 1957 SCC OnLine SC 42; Faddi v. State of M.P. [1964] 6 SCR 312 : 1964 SCC OnLine SC 123; Aghnoo Nagesia v. State of Bihar [1966] 1 SCR 134 : 1965 SCC OnLine SC 109; Murli v. State of Rajasthan [2009] 13 SCR 378 : (2009) 9 SCC 417; A. N. Venkatesh & Anr. v. State of Karnataka (2005) 7 SCC 714; State of Andhra Pradesh v. Rayavarapu Punnayya & Anr. [1977] 1 SCR 601 : (1976) 4 SCC 382; Budhi Singh v. State of Himachal Pradesh [2012] 11 SCR 848 : (2012) 13 SCC 663; Kikar Singh v. State of Rajasthan [1993] 3 SCR 696 : (1993) 4 SCC 238; Surain Singh v. State of Punjab [2017] 2 SCR 824 : (2017) 5 SCC 796 – relied on. List of Acts Evidence Act, 1872; Penal Code, 1860. List of Keywords Confessional FIR; Confessional FIR not admissible in evidence; Conviction altered from Section 302, Penal Code, 1860 to Section 304 Part I; Confession before a police officer; FIR of confessional nature made by accused; Confession made by accused before the police; Contents of the FIR hit by Section 25, Evidence Act, 1872; 570 [2025] 8 S.C.R. Supreme Court Reports Murder; Obscene remark about girlfriend; Section 27, Evidence Act, 1872; Section 8, Evidence Act, 1872; Corroboration of medical evidence with the confessional part of the FIR; Doctor not a witness of fact; Expert Witness; Incorrect application of Exception 4 to
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.