2025 Supreme(SC) 1151

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
J.B. PARDIWALA, R. MAHADEVAN, JJ.
Narayan Yadav - Appellant
Versus
State of Chhattisgarh - Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 3343 of 2025 (Arising out SLP (Crl.) No. 10595 of 2025)
Decided on : 05-08-2025

IMPORTANT POINTS
(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 as a medical expert for the purpose of proving contents of post-mortem report and medical certificates on record.
(3) Disclosure statement – Consequent to information given by accused, it must lead to discovery of some fact – Discovery of fact must relate to commission of some offence.
(4) Culpable homicide not amounting to murder – Exception 4 to Section 300 of IPC applies in absence of any premeditation.

Headnote:

(A) Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Section 304 Part I – Indian Evidence Act, 1872 – Section 25 – Culpable homicide not amounting to murder – Conviction and sentence – FIR lodged by appellant amounts to a confession, and any confession made by accused before Police is hit by Section 25 of Act of 1872 – There was no question at all for High Court to seek corroboration of medical evidence on record with confessional part of FIR lodged by appellant – Most of Panch witnesses turned hostile – No discovery of fact at instance of appellant, relevant and admissible under Section 27 of Act of 1872, has been established – If at all High Court intended to extend benefit of any of Exceptions to Section 300 of IPC, it ought to have considered Exception 1 of Section 300 of IPC – Impugned Judgement passed by High Court is not sustainable in law – Appellant acquitted of all charges. (Paras 25, 29, 50, 51, 52 and 53)

(B) Indian Evidence Act, 1872 – Sections 145 and 157 – Corroboration/contradiction of evidence of a witness – A statement in FIR can normally be used only to contradict its maker as provided in Section 145 of Evidence Act, 1872 or to corroborate his evidence as envisaged in Section 157 of Act of 1872 – However, in a criminal trial neither of these is possible as long as maker of statement is an accused in the case, unless he offers himself to be examined as a witness – Statement contained in FIR furnished by one of accused in the case cannot, in any manner, be used against another accused – Even as against accused who made it, statement cannot be used if it is inculpatory in nature nor can it be used for the purpose of corroboration or contradiction unless its maker offers himself as a witness in trial – Very limited use of it is, as an admission under Section 21 of Act of 1872, against its maker alone, and only if admission does not amount to confession. (Paras 17, 23 and 24)

(C) Indian Evidence Act, 1872 – Section 45[Section 39 of BSA, 2023] – Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 – Section 291[Section 326 of BNSS, 2023] – Medical evidence – Evidentiary value – Doctor is not a witness of fact – A doctor is examined by prosecution as a medical expert for the purpose of proving contents of post-mortem report and medical certificates on record – An expert witness is examined by prosecution because of his specialized knowledge on certain subjects, which Judge may not be fully equipped to assess – Evidence of such an expert is of an advisory character – Credibility of expert witness depends on reasons provided in support of his conclusions, as well as data and material forming basis of those conclusions – Accused cannot be held guilty of offence of murder solely on the basis of medical evidence on record – So far as Panch witnesses are concerned their depositions do not inspire any confidence. (Para 28)

(D) Indian Evidence Act, 1872 – Section 27[Section 23 of BSA, 2023] – Disclosure statement – Consequent to information given by accused, it must lead to discovery of some fact – Discovery of fact must relate to commission of some offence – Fact discovered must be one which was not within knowledge of Police and knowledge of fact for first time was derived from information given by accused – Only such portion of information as connected with said discovery is admissible. (Para 33)

(E) Indian Evidence Act, 1872 – Section 8[Section 6 of BSA, 2023] – Conduct of accused – While conduct of accused may be a relevant fact under Section 8 of Act of 1872, it cannot, by itself, serve as sole basis for conviction, especially in a grave charge such as murder – Like any other piece of evidence, conduct of accused is merely one of circumstances court may consider, in conjunction with other direct or circumstantial evidence on record – Although relevant, accused’s conduct alone cannot justify conviction in absence of cogent and credible supporting evidence. (Para 36)

(F) Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Exception 4 of Section 300 read with Section 299 – Culpable homicide not amounting to murder – Exception 4 to Section 300 of IPC applies in absence of any premeditation – There is provocation in Exception 4 as there is in Exception 1, but injury caused is not direct consequence of that provocation – Whenever court is confronted with question whether offence is “murder” or “culpable homicide not amounting to murder”, it will be convenient to approach the problem in three stages – Question to be considered at first stage is, whether accused committed an act which caused death of another person – Proof of causal connection between act of accused and resulting death leads to second stage, for considering whether that act of accused amounts to “culpable homicide” as defined in Section 299 of IPC – If answer to this question is, prima facie, found in affirmative, next stage involves considering application of Section 300 of IPC – At this stage, court must determine whether facts proved by prosecution bring the case within ambit of any of four clauses of definition of “murder” contained in Section 300. (Paras 40, 41 and 43)

Facts of the case:

Present appeal arises from judgment and order passed by High Court of Chhattisgarh in Criminal Appeal No. 1538 of 2021 dated 16.01.2025 by which appeal preferred by appellant herein against judgment and order of conviction passed by Trial Court came to be partly allowed by altering conviction of appellant herein from Section 302 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 to Section 304 Part I of IPC.

Findings of Court:

Appellant is acquitted of all the charges, and he be set free forthwith if not required in any other case. The bail bonds stand discharged.

Result : Appeal allowed.