Back
J. B. PARDIWALA, R. MAHADEVAN
Narayan Yadav – Appellant
Versus
State of Chhattisgarh – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
J.B. PARDIWALA, J.
For the convenience of exposition, this judgment is divided into the following parts:-
INDEX
A. FACTUAL MATRIX |
B. ANAYLYSIS |
a. Confessional FIR is not Admissible in Evidence |
b. Evidence of an Expert Witness is only Advisory in Nature |
c. Implication of Section(s) 27 and 8 of the Act of 1872 |
d. Incorrect application of Exception 4 to Section 300 of the IPC |
C. CONCLUSION |
C. CONCLUSION
1. Leave granted.
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.
A. 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:
“On 27.0
No cases explicitly identified as overruled, reversed, abrogated, or otherwise treated as bad law. No keywords such as "overruled," "reversed," or similar negative treatments appear in the provided list.
Arjun Hasda, S/o. Lt. Rega Hasda vs State of Assam rep. by PP, Assam - 2025 0 Supreme(Gau) 1225: Cited alongside multiple other cases (e.g., "Vetal Bhagwan Mandle Vs. State of Maharashtra, 2006 ALL.M.R. (Cri) 367, State of Madhya Pradesh Vs. ... State of Punjab, (1975) 4 SCC 234"), suggesting it is part of a list of precedents being referenced or relied upon in a judicial context, but no specific treatment indicated.
Sudarshan Mondal vs State of West Bengal - 2025 0 Supreme(Cal) 728: "Narayan Yadav V. ..." is summarized and explained in a 2025 INSC 927 decision ("the Supreme Court explained as follows"), indicating positive or neutral citation for its holding on culpable homicide; no negative treatment.
Hasan Mohamed vs The State represented by The Inspector of Police, Thirukkokarnam Police Station, Pudukkottai District - 2026 Supreme(Online)(Mad) 26616: Relies upon "Narayan Yadav Vs. ... State of Chhattisgarh reported in 2025 INSC 927" by quoting paragraphs 33 and 34, showing it is being followed or applied as supporting authority on Section 27 Evidence Act conditions.
A. N. Venkatesh VS State of Karnataka - 2005 5 Supreme 746: States an "Important point" on admissibility under Section 8 of Evidence Act as conduct evidence; no subsequent treatment or citation by other cases indicated.
Budhi Singh VS State of H. P. - 2012 8 Supreme 755: Articulates a principle on the doctrine of sudden and grave provocation ("incapable of rigid construction... depend on the facts"); presented as doctrinal guidance without treatment indicators.
Aghnoo Nagesia VS State Of Bihar - 1965 0 Supreme(SC) 151: States a rule on admissibility of confessional FIR under Sections 25 and 27 Evidence Act; no treatment by other cases shown.
Surain Singh VS State of Punjab - 2017 3 Supreme 674: States a rule on Exception for sudden quarrel and handy weapon ("entitled to the benefit of this Exception"); no treatment indicators.
None. All cases have sufficient context for categorization based on explicit language or lack thereof; no ambiguous treatments requiring separate notation.
(1) Statement contained in FIR furnished by one of accused in the case cannot, in any manner, be used against another accused.(2) Doctor is not a witness of fact – A doctor is examined by prosecution....
The court established that the presence of intention to kill, the nature of the weapon used, and the circumstances of the quarrel are critical in determining whether an act constitutes murder or a le....
The court held that acts committed under grave and sudden provocation may reduce the charge from murder to culpable homicide, emphasizing the absence of malicious intent.
(1) Ordinarily, a witness cannot be expected to recall accurately sequence of events which take place in rapid succession or in a short time span – Presence of an injured eye-witness at the time and ....
The court established that a homicide committed in a sudden fight without premeditation and without taking undue advantage can be classified as culpable homicide not amounting to murder under Excepti....
The court ruled that a confession made to a police officer is inadmissible as evidence, and the conviction for murder was reduced to culpable homicide due to lack of premeditation.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the application of the exceptions under Section 300 IPC, particularly in cases involving sudden quarrel and loss of self-control, and the need to e....
The court ruled that solitary eyewitness testimony can suffice for conviction in murder cases, especially when corroborated by medical evidence. The culpable act did not fall under provocation except....
Culpable homicide may be reduced to lesser charges under Exception 4 of Section 300 IPC when death occurs due to injuries inflicted during a sudden fight without premeditation.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
