Judgement Briefs

Evidence Law

Aghnoo Nagesia v. State of Bihar

AIR 1966 SC 119

Citation
AIR 1966 SC 119
Court
Supreme Court of India
Date
4 May 1965
Bench
K. Subba Rao, Raghubar Dayal and R.S. Bachawat JJ.

Facts

  • Aghnoo Nagesia was prosecuted for murdering four relatives:
  • Somra;
  • Chamin;
  • Ratni;
  • Dilu.
  • There was no eyewitness to the murders.
  • Aghnoo himself went to the police station and lodged the first information report.
  • The FIR contained a complete narrative in which he:
  • described the victims;
  • explained the alleged motive;
  • narrated preparations;
  • described the killings;
  • identified the places where the bodies were lying;
  • revealed where the weapon had been concealed.
  • After recording the FIR, the police arrested him.
  • He subsequently accompanied the investigating officer and pointed out:
  • the dead bodies;
  • the location of a concealed tangi;
  • other connected places.
  • The trial court and High Court used substantial parts of the FIR against him.
  • They treated the direct admission of killing as inadmissible but relied upon the portions concerning:
  • motive;
  • opportunity;
  • movements;
  • presence;
  • conduct before and after the offence.
  • Aghnoo argued that once the FIR was found to be confessional, the entire connected statement was barred by Section 25.

Issue

  • Whether a confessional FIR given by an accused to a police officer is barred by Section 25.
  • Whether portions dealing with motive, preparation and subsequent conduct may be separated and admitted.
  • What limited parts of such an FIR may nevertheless be proved.

Rule

  • Section 25 of the Evidence Act prohibited proof of a confession made to a police officer against an accused.
  • Section 23(1) BSA now contains the same basic prohibition.
  • A confession may consist of several connected components, including:
  • motive;
  • preparation;
  • opportunity;
  • commission;
  • concealment;
  • conduct after the offence.
  • If the statement, read as a whole, is a confession, the prohibition applies to the entire confessional narrative.
  • The prosecution cannot avoid Section 25 by:
  • deleting the direct admission of killing;
  • proving the remaining incriminating admissions.
  • Exceptions remain for:
  • the formal fact that the accused gave the FIR;
  • conduct independently relevant under Section 8;
  • portions admissible under Section 27 because they distinctly relate to facts discovered.
  • An FIR is not itself substantive evidence of its contents.

Application

  • Aghnoo’s FIR was not an ordinary report by an innocent informant.
  • It contained a full acknowledgment of guilt and a connected account of all stages of the offence.
  • The Court rejected the “separability” approach adopted by some High Courts.
  • Statements concerning motive and preparation had significance only as parts of the complete confession.
  • Allowing those portions would substantially destroy the protection of Section 25.
  • A police confession would then be indirectly proved through all its surrounding admissions even though the final sentence admitting the offence was removed.
  • Therefore, almost the entire FIR had to be excluded.
  • The prosecution could prove the formal introductory portion showing:
  • Aghnoo’s identity;
  • that he went to the police station;
  • that he provided information resulting in investigation.
  • His act of lodging the report could also be considered as conduct, but the confessional contents could not be proved through that route.
  • The Court assumed that he was in constructive custody for the limited purpose of Section 27.
  • Accordingly, the portions distinctly related to discovery of:
  • the dead bodies;
  • the concealed tangi, could be admitted.
  • However, Section 27 did not make admissible the whole narrative explaining how and why the victims were killed.
  • After excluding the confessional FIR, the remaining evidence consisted mainly of:
  • knowledge of the locations;
  • recovery of the weapon;
  • a bloodstained cloth;
  • his presence near one area.
  • These circumstances created suspicion but did not conclusively establish that he committed all four murders.

Conclusion

  • The Supreme Court held that the FIR was a confession made to a police officer.
  • Except for:
  • formal identifying portions;
  • independently relevant conduct;
  • information distinctly connected with discoveries under Section 27, the entire FIR was inadmissible.
  • Motive, preparation and other incriminating portions could not be separated from the confession.
  • The remaining evidence was insufficient to prove murder beyond reasonable doubt.
  • Aghnoo’s conviction and death sentence were set aside, and he was acquitted.