PROJECT REPORT ON

Confessional First Information

Report
SUBMITTED TO:
Ms. Neha Sinha
(Faculty Member in Law)
SUBMITTED BY :
Akshay Kr. Mankar
Roll No.: 16 Section C
Semester VII
(B.A., L.L.B (Hons.))

Date of Submission: 16 -08-2016

(2015-2016)

Hidayatullah National Law University

Uparwara Post, Abhanpur, New Raipur 493661 (C.G.)
1

Declaration

The researcher hereby declares that the project work entitled Confessional FIR
submitted to Hidayatullah National Law University, Raipur, is a record of an original work done
by the researcher under the guidance of Ms. Neha Sinha, faculty member of Law, Hidayatullah
National Law University, Raipur.
The research done by the researcher is his own work and wherever excerpts from the
works of different authors have been taken, they have been duly acknowledged.

_____________________
Akshay Kumar Mankar
ROLL NO. 16, Section C
Semester VII

Acknowledgement

First and foremost, I would like to thank my Faculty of Law, Ms. Neha Sinha for offering this
subject, Confessional FIR, and for her valuable guidance and advice. She inspired me greatly
to work in this project. She also helped me in improving the perception regarding to the study of
the topic in its vast resources and in a broader way clearing all the doubts and uncertainty
towards this project. Therefore, I want to thank her for all his efforts and cooperation which she
conferred me.

I also owe my gratitude towards University Administration for providing me all kinds of required
facilities with good Library and IT lab which helped me in making the project and completing it.
My special thank to Library Staff and IT staff for equipping me with the necessary data and
websites from the internet.

I would also like to thank my dear colleagues who had helped me a lot creating this project with
their ideas and thoughts over the topic. They act as a motivating and guiding force to me during
the making of this project.

_____________________
Akshay Kumar Mankar
ROLL NO. 16 SECTION: C
Semester VII

Table of Cases

Pandurang Chandrakant Mhatre v. State of Maharashtra (2009) 10 SCC 773, 2009 (10)
UJ 4611 (SC)

Pakala Narayan Swami v. Emperor AIR 1939 P.C. 47

Sahoo v. State of U.P 1965 SCR (3) 86
Dagdu v. State of Maharashtra 1977 SCR (3) 636
R v. Murugan Ramasay (1964) 64 C.N.L.R. 265 (P.C.) at 268

Aghnoo Nagesia v. State of Bihar 1966 SCR (1) 134

Contents

Declaration........................................................................................................................................i
Acknowledgement..........................................................................................................................ii
Table of Cases................................................................................................................................iii
Introduction......................................................................................................................................1
Research Methodology....................................................................................................................2

1.
2.
3.
4.

i.
Problems of Study..........................................................................................................2
ii.
Rationale........................................................................................................................2
iii.
Objectives....................................................................................................................2
iv.
Review of Literature......................................................................................................2
v.
Nature and Methodology...............................................................................................3
vi.
Limitation.......................................................................................................................3
vii.
Mode of Citation...........................................................................................................3
First Information Report............................................................................................................4
Confession..................................................................................................................................6
Confession to Police..................................................................................................................9
Case Study...............................................................................................................................10

Conclusion.....................................................................................................................................13
References..................................................................................................................................14

Introduction
Criminal law and evidence law are such subjects which have been quite glamorized in the
fictions, in literature, on theaters and in movies and TV shows. There are many stories in which a
5

protagonist kills the wrong guy and immediately surrenders, and makes a confession to the
police. In fictions, we also often see the police forcing people to confess the crime, by using
various methods like the third degree. This might raise an immediate sense of injustice in the
mind of any prudent person.
If we look at the legal aspect, we can fairly call such acts as making of confessional FIR. While
we look into the provisions of the Indian Evidence Act 1872, we come to know that FIR has per
se has a bare minimum evidentiary values. Also, there seem legitimate reasons that confession
made to the police is not admitted, as it might be forced. The confessor could also be persuaded
by any illegal methods. When it comes to confessional FIR, there one doesnt finds the
possibility of coercion as the confessor approaches all by himself. Confessional FIR, if taken as
an evidence, is likely to save a lot of time of the police which is already burdened with the cases.
The confessional FIR looks like a legitimate way out of a mystery, but the question is, if that
really is? On a second thought, the confessional FIR could also be forged one. On the bright side,
the guilty person coming to justice himself/herself and saving a lot of precious time also looks
very lucrative.
The status of a confessional FIR as an evidence seems very uncertain on the face of it as it
undermines the various questions which need to be answered. Also, the landmark decision of the
Supreme Court in this regard needs to be closely studied to come to a conclusion. The study has
been divided into 4 chapters. Each discusses one related topic briefly. At the end, in the
conclusion, it has been tried to bring together all the pieces and try to answer the questions which
have been raised in this study.

Research Methodology

i.

Problems of study

The law of evidence in India is self explanatory in nature, therefore not a lot of research has been
done to deduce the underlying principle, in case of this project, that being the confessional FIR.
For any common man, Confessional FIR might mean the solution of a mystery and end of a case.
Also, the landmark decision related to the subject in concern has also not been studied critically.

ii.

Rationale

All the books mention in the most brief way the evidentiary value of a confessional FIR, but no author
has tried to deduce the underlying principle behind this provision. The landmark decision regarding the
issue also needs to studied critically to figure out the rationale the rationale, the Indian judiciary has
provide, regarding the justification of such established principle.
.

iii.

Objectives

The objective of this study is to critically analyse the different provisions related to FIR and confession
and to try to deduce the status of a confessional FIR and the rationale behind such a status. Also, this
project aims to study the perspective given by the judiciary for the established status. Following are the
specific objectives:

i.
ii.

To study the legal status of FIR and confession as evidence.

To analyse provisions related to above to deduce the legal status of confessional FIR

iii.

as an evidence.
To study critically the related cases and to develop an understanding regarding courts

iv.

perspective.
To establish the legal status of confessional FIR and the rationale behind

v.

Review of Literature

In law of Evidence in India by Basu, the subject is very shortly discussed, lacking any specific

explanations. Similar is the case with law of Evidence by Ratanlal & Dhirajlal, the Law of
Evidence by Batuklal and lectures on the Indian Evidence Act by Justice U.L. Bhat. The
online sources have even less information on the subject. A proper case study of the land mark
judgment related to the subject is also missing.

iv.

Nature of study & Methodology

This research study is doctrinal in nature. Doctrinal (Non-Empirical) Method of Research has

been relied upon for conducting the research. For the purpose of research Encyclopaedias,
Books, Case laws etc have been relied upon.

v.

Limitation of study

This study could have involved the status of confessional FIR in the other jurisdiction, but it has
been strictly restricted to the Indian legal system. Also, the immediately relatable topics like FIR
and confession have been dealt only.

vi.

Mode of Citation

A uniform system of NLS citation has been adopted throughout the project.

1. First Information Report

First Information or First Information Report is not defined anywhere, but these words are
always understood to mean an information recorded U/s-154 (1) of Cr.P.C. It is the information
given to a police officer in the form of a complaint or accusation regarding the commission of or
suspected commission of a cognizable offence. FIR is the information which is given to the
police first in point of time on the basis of which the police may select ad record as First
Information1. FIR is the first step of Criminal Procedure that leads to the trial and punishment of
a criminal. It is also the most important supportive evidence on which the entire structure of the
prosecution of the case is built up. The object of FIR is to set the criminal law in motion. It
enables the police Officer-in-Charge of the police station to initiate the investigation on the crime
and to collect evidence as soon as possible. This report forms the foundation of the case.
Evidentiary value of FIR
The statements made to the police are if three categories a) A statement which has been recorded
as an First Information Report ( herein after referred to as FIR) b) statement recorded by the
police in the course of investigation c)a statement recorded by the police but not falling under the
above (a) and (b) category. None of the above statements can be considered as substantive
evidence, that is to say, as evidence of facts stated therein. Because it is not made during trial, it
is not given on oath, nor is it tested by cross examination. If the person making any such
statement to the police subsequently appears and gives evidence in court at the time of trial, his
former statement could , however be used to corroborate or to contradict his testimony according
to the provisions of the Evidence Act, 1872.
It was held in Pandurang Chandrakant Mhatre v. State of Maharashtra 2, that it is fairly well
settled that first information report is not a substantive piece of evidence and it can be used only
to discredit the testimony of the maker thereof and it cannot be utilised for contradicting or
1 AIR 1975 SC 1453
2 (2009)10SCC773, 2009(10)UJ4611(SC)
9

discrediting the testimony of other witnesses. Although first information report is not expected to
be encyclopaedia of events, but an information to the police to be first information report
under Section 154(1) must contain some essential and relevant details of the incident. A cryptic
information about commission of a cognizable offence irrespective of the nature and details of
such information may not be treated as an FIR. An FIR recorded without any loss of time is
likely to be free from embroideries, exaggerations and without anybody intermeddling with it
and polluting and adulterating the same with lies. The purpose of, FIR is to obtain the earliest
account of a cognizable offence, before there is an opportunity for the circumstances to be
forgotten and embellished. It is well settled that FIR is not a substantive piece of evidence and
can be used to corroborate or contradict the statement of the maker thereof. It is also equally
established that trustworthiness of the prosecution story can also be judged from the FIR.
Besides first information report is relevant as it may be a part of the res gestae.
Following circumstances have been identified as the uses of FIR, which are non confessional in
nature, for evidentiary purposes: 1. For corroboration purposes: It cannot be ignored altogether
and can be used to corroborate the statement of the eyewitnesses. 2. For contradicting the
evidence of person giving the information. 3. For proving as an admission against the informer.
4. For refreshing informers memory. 5. For impeaching the credit of an informer. 6. For proving
informers conduct. 7. For establishing identity of accused, witnesses & for fixing spot time as
relevant facts under Section 9, the Indian Evidence Act, 1872

10

2. Confession
Definition: The term confession is nowhere defined. But Stephens definition of
confession which included admission suggesting the inference that he committed the crime
and when was acted upon by most Courts for a very long time was modified by the Privy
Council holding that only a direct acknowledgment of guilt should be regarded as confession.
In a case3, Lord Atkin observed that:
A confession must either admit in terms the offence, or at any rate substantially all the facts
which constitute the offence. An admission of a gravely incriminating fact, even a conclusively
incriminating fact, is not in itself a confession, for example, an admission that the accused is the
owner of and was in recent possession of the knife or revolver which caused death with no
explanation of any other mans possession.
Inculpatory and Exculpatory confession:- The confession to something wrong or which
involves the accused of any guilt is inculpatory confession. And, the confession which absolves
the accused of any guilt is exculpatory confession.
A confession may occur in many forms. When it is made to the court itself then it will be called
judicial confession and when it is made to anybody outside the court, in that case it will be called
extra-judicial confession. It may even consist of conversation to oneself, which may be produced
in evidence if overheard by another. E.g. In Sahoo v. State of U.P.4 the accused who was charged
with the murder of his daughter-in-law with whom he was always quarreling was seen on the day
of the murder going out of the house, saying words to the effect: I have finished her and with
her the daily quarrels. The statement was held to be a confession relevant in evidence, for it is
not necessary for the relevancy of a confession that it should be communicated to some other
person.
Form of Confession:- A confession may occur in any form. It may be made to the court itself,
when it will be known as judicial confession or to anybody outside the court, in which case it is
3 Pakala Narayan Swami v. Emperor AIR 1939 P.C. 47
4 1966 AIR 40, 1965 SCR (3) 86
11

called an extra-judicial confession. It may even consist of conservation to oneself, which may be
produced in evidence if overheard by another.
Judicial confessions are those, which are made before a magistrate or in court in the due course
of legal proceedings. A judicial confession has been defined to mean plea of guilty on
arrangement (made before a court) if made freely by a person in a fit state of mind.
Extra-judicial confessions are made by the accused elsewhere than before a magistrate or in
court. It is not necessary that the statements should have been addressed to any definite
individual. It may have taken place in the form of a prayer. It may be a confession to a private
person. An extra-judicial confession has been defined to mean a free and voluntary confession
of guilt by a person accused of a crime in the course of conversation with persons other than
judge or magistrate seized of the charge against himself. Difference mentioned in section164.
Voluntary and non-voluntary confession- the confession of an accused may be classified into
Voluntary and non-voluntary confession. A confession to the police officer is the confession
made by the accused while in the custody of a police officer and never relevant and can never be
proved under Section 25 and 26. Now as for the extra-judicial confession and confession made
by the accused to some magistrate to whom he has been sent by the police for the purpose during
the investigation, they are admissible only when they are made voluntarily. If the making of the
confession appears to the court to have been caused by any inducement, threat or promise having
reference to the change against the accused person proceeding from a person in authority and
sufficient in opinion of the court to give the accused person grounds, which would appear to him
reasonable for supporting that by making it he would gain any advantage or avoid any evil of a
temporal nature in reference to the proceeding against him, it will not be relevant and it cannot
be proved against the person making the statement. Section 24 of the Evidence Act lays down the
rule for the exclusion of the confession which are made non-voluntarily.
Evidentiary Value of Confession

A confession is substantive evidence against its maker, so that it has been duly recorded
and suffers from no legal infirmity, it would suffice to convict the accused who made the
confession, though as a matter of prudence, the Court expects some corroboration before
acting upon it. Even then slight corroboration would suffice.
12

But before acting upon a confession, the Court must be satisfied that it
is voluntary and true.

1. Voluntaries depend upon whether there was any threat, inducement or promise.
2. Its truth is to be judged in the context of the entire prosecution case,- whether it fits into
the proved facts and does not run counter to them.
If these two conditions are satisfied, it becomes the most portent piece of evidence against the
maker.

The confession would not ordinarily be considered the basic for conviction. However, it
is admissible and conviction may also be based upon it if it is found truthful and
voluntary and in a given case some corroboration is necessary. Confession which is not
retracted even at the stage of trial and even accepted by the accused in the statement
under section 313 Cr.P.C. can be fully relied upon. So, the conviction based thereon
together with other circumstantial evidence is sustainable.

The accused in his statement under section 313 Cr.P.C. or during cross-examination never
suggested that his statement under section 164 Cr.P.C. is false. Allegation of presence of
police officers at the time of recording the confession was without any material.
Requirement of section 164(2) Cr.P.C. have been complied with. Such a confession
statement was fit to be accepted.

13

3. Confession to police

Section 25 of the Evidence Act5 deals with the subject of confession made to the police. It reads
that: No confession made to a police officer shall be proved as against a person accused of any
offence.
Reasons for exclusion of confession to police- another variety of confessions that are under the
evidence act regarded as involuntary are those made to a personnel. Section 25 expressly
declares that such confessions shall not be proved.
If confessions to police were allowed to be proved in evidence, the police would torture the
accused and thus force him to confess to a crime which he might not have a committed. A
confession so obtained would naturally be unreliable. It would not be voluntary. Such a
confession will be irrelevant whatever may be its form, direct, express, implied or inferred from
conduct. The reasons for which this policy was adopted when the act was passed in 1872 are
probably still valid.
In Dagdu v. State of Maharashtra6, supreme court noted The archaic attempt to secure
confessions by hook or by crook seems to be the be-all and end-all of the police investigation.
The police should remember that confession may not always be a short-cut to solution. Instead of
trying to start from a confession they should strive to arrive at it. Else, when they are busy
on their short-route to success, good evidence may disappear due to inattention to real clues.
Once a confession is obtained, there is often flagging of zeal for a full and through investigation
with a view to establish the case de hors the confession, later, being inadmissible for one reason
or other, the case fondles in the court.
In R v. Murugan Ramasay7, Police authority itself, however, carefully controlled, carries a
menace to those brought suddenly under its shadow and the law recognises and provides against
5 Indian Evidence Act ,1872
6 AIR 1977 SC 1579; 1977 SCR (3) 636
7 (1964) 64 C.N.L.R. 265 (P.C.) at 268
14

the danger of such persons making incriminating confessions with the intention of placating
authority and without regard to the truth of what they are saying.

4. Case study : Aghnoo Nagesia v. State of Bihar8

Facts:
On August 11, 1963 between 7 a.m. and 8 a.m. the appellant murdered Somra in a forest known
as Dungijharan Hills and later Chamin in Kesari Garha field and then Ratni and Dilu in the house
of Ratni at village Jamtoli. The first information of the offences was lodged by the appellant
himself at police station Palkot on August 11, 1963 at 3-15 p.m. The information was reduced to
writing by the officerin-charge, Sub-Inspector H. P. Choudhury, and the appellant affixed his left
thumb-impression on the report. The Sub Inspector immediately took cognizance of the offence,
and arrested the appellant. The next day, the Sub Inspector in the company of the appellant went
to the house of Ratni, where the appellant pointed out the dead bodies of Ratni and Dilu and also
a place in the orchard of Ratni covered with bushes and grass, where he had concealed a tangi.
The appellant then took the Sub Inspector and witnesses to Kasiari garha khet and pointed out
the dead body of Chamin lying in a ditch covered with Ghanghu. The appellant then took the Sub
Inspector and the witnesses to Dungijharan Hills, where he pointed out the dead body of Somra
lying in the slope of the hills to the north. The Sub Inspector also recovered from the appellant's
house a chadar stained with human blood.
There was no eye-witness to the murders. The principal evidence against the appellant consists of
the first information report, which contains a full confession of guilt by the appellant.
The first information report was divided by the judges in 18 parts and reads as follows and: "My
name is Aghnu Nagesia. (1) My father's name is Lodhi Nagesia. I am a resident of Lotwa, Tola
Jamtoli, thana Palkot, district Ranchi. Today, Sunday, date not known, at about 3 p.m. I having
come to the P.S. make statement before you the S.I. of Police (2) that on account of my Barima
(aunt) Mussammat having given away her property to her daughter and son-in-law quarrels and
8 1966 AIR 119;1966 SCR (1) 134

15

troubles have been occurring among us. My Barima has no son and she is a widow. Hence on her
death we shall be owners of her lands and properties and daughter and son-in- law of Barima
shall have no right to them. She lives separate from us, and lives in her house with her daughter
and son-in-law and I live with my brother separately in my house. Our lands are separate from
the time of our father. (3) Today in the morning at about 7-8 a.m. I had -one with a tangi to Duni
Jharan Pahar to cut shrubs for fencing. I found Somra sitting alone there who was grazing cattle
there. (4) Seeing him I got enraged and dealt him a tangi blow on the fill (calf) of right leg,
whereby he toppled down on the ground. Thereupon I dealt him several Chheo (blows) on the
head and the face, with the result that he became speechless and died. At that time there was
none near about on that Pahar. (5) Thereafter I came to the Kesari Garu field where "Somra's
wife Chamin was weeding out grass in the field. (6) 1 struck her also all on a sudden on the head
with the said tangi whereby she dropped down on the ground and died then and there. (7)
Thereafter I dragged her to an adjoining field and laid her in a ditch to the north of it and covered
her body with Gongu (Pala ke Chhata) so that people might not see her. There was no person
then at that place also. (8) Thereafter I armed with that tangi went to the house of my Barima to
kill her. When I reached there, I found that she was sitting near the hearth which was burning. (9)
Reaching there all on a sudden I began to strike her on the head with tangi whereupon she
dropped down dead at that very place. (10) Near her was Somra's son aged about 3 -4 years. (11)
I also struck him with the tangi. He also fell down and died. (12) I finished the line of my Barima
so that no one could take share in her properties. (13) 1 hid the tangi in the jhari of my Barima's
house. (14) Later on I narrated the occurrence to my chacha (father's brother) Lerha that I killed
the aforesaid four persons with tangi. After sometime (15) I started for the P.S. to lodge
information and reaching the P.S. T make this statement before you. (16) My Barima had all
along been quarrelling like a Murukh (foolish woman) and being vexed, I did so. (17) All the
dead bodies and the tangi would be lying in those places. I can point them out. (18) This is my
statement. I got it read over to me and finding it correct, I affixed my left thumb-impression."
Issue: Whether the whole confessional statement in the first information report

was

banned by Section 25 of the Evidence Act or only those portions of it were barred which
related to the actual commission of the crime.
Contentions:
16

On behalf of the appellant, it is contended that the entire statement is a confession made to a
police officer and is not provable against the appellant, having regard to S. 25 of the Indian
Evidence Act, 1872. On behalf of the respondent, it is contended that S. 25 protects only those
portions of the statement which disclose the killings by the appellant and the rest of the statement
is not protected by s. 25
Held:
A confession may consist of severd parts and may reveal not only the actual commission of the
crime but also the motive, the preparation, the provocation etc. If the confession is tainted the
taint attaches to the whole statement of the accused. [140 B-C] If a statement contains an
admission of an offence, not only that admission but also every other admission of an
incriminating fact contained in the statement is part of he confession. Little substance and
content would be left in ss. 24, 25 and 26 if proof of admissions of incriminating facts in
confessional statement is permitted. [140 D-E, F] The appellant's first information report was a
confessional statement to a police officer and as such no part of it could be admitted into
evidence on account of the ban in s. 25 except in so far as the ban was lifted by s. 27 and except
in so far as it identified the appellant is the maker of the report.

Rationale:
The terms of s. 25 are imperative. A confession made to a police officer under any circumstances
is not admissible in evidence against the accused. It covers a confession made when he was free
and not in police custody, as also a confession made before any investigation has begun. The
expression "accused of any offence" covers a person accused of an offence at the trial whether or
not he was accused of the offence when he made the confession.

17

Conclusion

It is fairly well settled that first information report is not a substantive piece of evidence and it
can be used only to discredit the testimony of the maker thereof and it cannot be utilized for
contradicting or discrediting the testimony of other witnesses.
Though, the confession has the evidentiary value, the confession to police has been disabled
from forming th part of evidence. If confessions to police were allowed to be proved in evidence,
the police would torture the accused and thus force him to confess to a crime which he might not
have a committed. For that reason, confession ton police seems to not have any evidentiary
value.
From the above study we find that an FIR is inadmissible in the court of law and so is a
confession made to police. If we build further upon the observation, it is implied that
confessional FIR would also be not fit for admission. This doubt has further been cleared in the
landmark decision of Aghnoo Nagesia v. State of Bihar9, where the supreme court has clarified
the position of law on the matter of confessional FIR and held that under the purview of section
2510, confession made to police officer is not admissible, and so in confessional FIR.

9 1966 AIR 119,1966 SCR (1) 134

10 Indian Evidence Act, 1872
18

References

Indian Kanoon; www.indiankanoon.org

Jstor; www.jstor.org
Scribd; www.scribd.com
The Law of Evidence; Batuk Lal; 21st edition; Reprint 2016
The Law of Evidence; Ratanlal & Dhirala: 13th edition; 2013.

19