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 – 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]
As published in the Supreme Court Reports, Supreme Court of India. Headnotes prepared by: Divya Pandey. Text from the Indian Supreme Court Judgments open data set (Dattam Labs), CC BY 4.0.
This page is for informational and research purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Consult a qualified advocate for advice specific to your situation.