1 CGHC010041262022 2026:CGHC:28402 DB AFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR ACQA No. 39 of 2022 State of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Officer, Police Station Nawagarh, District Janjgir Champa (CG) ... Appellant versus Anwar Khan S/o Shabbir Khan Aged About 38 Years, Resident of Village Nawagarh, Police Station Nawagarh, District Janjgir Champa (CG) ---- Respondent For Appellant/State : Mr. Rishi Raj Pithawa, Dy. Government Advocate For Respondent : Mr. Prabhat Kumar Saxena, Advocate Division Bench Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay S. Agrawal & Hon'ble Shri Justice Narendra Kumar Vyas Judgment on Board 09.07.2026 Per Sanjay S. Agrawal, J. 1. This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 08.09.2021 passed in Sessions Trial No.12/2020 (Crime No.289/2019), whereby, the learned Sessions Judge, Janjgir Champa (CG), has acquitted the respondent- Anwar Khan from the commission of the offence SUNITA GOSWAMI Digitally signed by SUNITA GOSWAMI Date: 2026.07.10 16:53:33 +0530 2 punishable under Section 302 of IPC. 2. The respondent has been charged for the offence punishable under Section 302 of IPC, on the allegation that on 04.11.2019 at 02.00 am, when he returned home has seen the deceased namely, Sunita Kushwaha sitting in front of his house, who had earlier love affair with his younger brother- Jamir Khan and was damaging the door (Shutter) of the house while throwing stones and was burning the curtains of it while using filthy words and stated to commit suicide when she was resisted by him, owing to which, he got annoyed, picked up a stone lying there and assaulted on her head and face and pressed her neck with the aid of Dupatta (long scarf) and, thereafter burnt her while pouring the petrol upon her. The alleged offence has been registered against him based upon the First Information Report (Ex.P-8) lodged by himself on 04.11.2019 before the Police Station, Nawagarh of District Janjgir Champa and, during the course of investigation, one pair of slipper and blood stained mobile owned by the deceased was seized from the spot vide Ex.P-3 on 04.11.2019, while a blood stained stone and the match-box were recovered from his house on 04.11.2019, based upon his disclosure statement (Ex.P-1) and, were sent for chemical examination, where human blood was found on the slipper, owned by the deceased, as well as, the stone, recovered at his instance and, based upon these materials, he has been charged as such for the offence punishable under Section 302 IPC. 3. In view of the aforesaid materials, it is, thus, evident that there is no eye-witness to the commission of murder of said Sunita Kushwaha and, according to the FSL report, though, human blood was found on 3 the slipper owned by the deceased with a blood group ‘O’, but no blood group was detected in the alleged stone recovered from the house of the respondent. There is, thus, no material evidence has been placed on record by the prosecution, except the FIR (Ex.P-8) lodged by the respondent himself which contains a full confession of the commission of murder of said Sunita by him and, if the same is excluded then other evidence, observed herein-above, would be insufficient to commit him for the commission of the alleged crime. 4. The First Information Report (Ex.P-8) lodged by the respondent himself reads in its verbatim as under:- “eSa mDr irs ij jgrk gw¡ ,oa eksVj lk;dy feL=h gw¡] d{kk 12oha rd i<+k gw¡ fd vkt ls djhc 10 o"kZ iwoZ esjs NksVk HkkbZ tehj [kku ds lkFk e`frdk lquhrk dq’kokgk dk laca/k py jgk Fkk] dqN le; ckn nksuksa esa laca/k foPNsn gks x;k fd vkt fnukad 04@11@2019 ds jkf= djhc 2 cts eSa eksgYyk esa dcM~Mh dk vk;kstu gks jgk Fkk dcM~Mh ns[kdj okil ?kj ykSVk rks e`frdk lquhrk dq’kokgk esjs ?kj ds lkeus cSBh Fkh] ?kj ds njoktk lkVj dks iRFkj ls rksM+QksM+ dj jgh Fkh] yxs inkZ dks QkM+ dj tyk jgh Fkh] xkyh xykSt dj jgh Fkh] eSa euk fd;k rks ;gha vkRe gR;k dj yawxh cksy jgh Fkh] eSa xqLlk esa vkdj ikl esa iM+s iRFkj dks mBk dj mlds flj ,oa psgjk ij iVd dj ,oa nqiV~Vk ls xyk dks nck dj ,oa fMCck ¼ckVy½ esa j[ks isVªksy dks mlds 'kjhj ij Mky dj ekfpl ls vkx yxk dj gR;k dj fn;k gw¡A eSa Lo;a Fkkus esa vkdj fjiksVZ ntZ djk jgk gw¡A fjiksVZ ntZ dh tk;sA fjiksVZ i<+k lquk tSlk crk;k oSlk fy[kk x;k gSA vijk/k iathc) dj foos0 esa fy;k x;kA” 5. A bare perusal of the aforesaid report, it is, thus, evident that the respondent has confessed the alleged guilt of the murder of said 4 Sunita Kushwaha, but before the police officer. Therefore, the alleged confession of his guilt made before the police officer is inadmissible by virtue of Section 25 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. The said provision which is relevant for the said purpose reads as under :- “25. Confession to police officer not to be proved. - No confession made to a police officer, shall be proved as against a person accused of any offence”. 6. The aforesaid provision makes it clear that the confessional statement, if made, by the accused before the police officer would, thus, be inadmissible in evidence and cannot be taken into consideration for convicting the accused. Therefore, though as revealed from the FIR (Ex.P-8), the respondent has confessed his guilt before the police officers regarding the murder of said Sunita, but the alleged of his version is, however, prohibited by virtue of Section 25 of the Indian Evidence Act and, no reliance, therefore, could be placed upon it in order to attribute him for commission of the alleged crime. 7. The aforesaid observation is fortified by the principles laid down by the Supreme Court in the matter of Aghnoo Nagesia Vs. State of Bihar, reported in AIR 1966, SC 119, wherein, while interpreting the aforesaid provision, it was held at paragraphs 9, 10,14 and 18as under :- “9. Section 25 of the Evidence Act is one of the provisions of law dealing with confessions made by an accused. The law relating to confessions is to be found generally in Ss. 24 to 30 of the Evidence Act and Ss. 162 and 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898. Section 5 17 to 31 of the Evidence Act are to be found under the heading "Admissions". Confession is a species of admission, and is dealt with in Ss. 24 to 30. A confession or an admission is evidence against the maker of it, unless its admissibility is excluded by some provision of law. Section 24 excludes confession caused by certain inducements, threats and promises. Section 25 provides: "No confession made to a police officer shall be proved as against a person accused of an offence". 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. Section 26 prohibits proof against any person of a confession made by him in the custody of a police officer, unless it is made in the immediate presence of a Magistrate. The partial ban imposed by S. 26 relates to a confession made to a person other than a police officer. Section 26 does not qualify the absolute ban imposed by S. 25 on a confession made to a police officer. Section 27 is the form of a proviso, and partially lifts the ban imposed by Ss. 24, 25 and 26. It provides that when any fact is deposed to as discovered in consequence of information received from a person accused of any offence, in the custody of a police officer, so much of such information, whether it amounts to a confession or not, as relates distinctly to the fact thereby 6 discovered, may be proved. Section 162 of the Code of Criminal Procedure forbids the use of any statement made by any person to a police officer in the course of an investigation for any purpose at any enquiry or trial in respect of the offence under investigation, save as mentioned in the proviso and in cases falling under sub-s. (2), and it specifically provides that nothing in it shall be deemed to affect the provisions of S. 27 of the Evidence Act. The words of S. 162 are wide enough to include a confession made to a police officer in the course of an investigation. A statement or confession made in the course of an investigation may be recorded by a Magistrate under S. 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure subject to the safeguards imposed by the section. Thus, except as provided by S. 27 of the Evidence Act, a confession by an accused to a police officer is absolutely protected under S. 25 of the Evidence Act, and if it is made in the course of an investigation, it is also protected by S. 162 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, and a confession to any other person made by him while in the custody of a police officer is protected by S. 26, unless it is made in the immediate presence of a Magistrate. These provisions seem to proceed upon the view that confessions made by an accused to a police officer or made by him while he is in the custody of a police officer are not to be trusted, and should not be used in evidence against him. They are based upon grounds of public policy and the fullest effect should be given to them. 10. Section 154 of the Code of Criminal Procedure provides for the recording of the first 7 information. The information report as such is not substantive evidence. It may be used to corroborate the informant under S. 157 of the Evidence Act or to contradict him under S. 145 of the Act, if the informant is called as a witness. If the first information is given by the accused himself, the fact of his giving the information is admissible against him as evidence of his conduct under S. 8 of the Evidence Act. If the information is a non-confessional statement, it is admissible against the accused as an admission under S. 21 of the Evidence Act and is relevant, see Faddi v. State of Madhya Pradesh, Cri. Appeal No. 210 of 1963, dated 24-1-1964: (AIR 1964 SC 1850), explaining Nisar Ali v. State of U. P., (S) AIR 1957 SC 366 and Dal Singh v. King Emperor, 44 Ind App 137: (AIR 1917 PC 25). But a confessional first information report to a police Officer cannot be used against the accused in view of S. 25 of the Evidence Act. 14. If proof of the confession is excluded by any provision of law such as S.24, S. 25 and S. 26 of the Evidence Act, the entire confessional statement in all its parts including the admissions of minor incriminating facts must also be excluded, unless proof of it is permitted by some other section under as S. 27 of the Evidence Act. Little substance and content would be left in Ss. 24, 25 and 26 if proof of admission of incriminating facts in a confessional statement is permitted. 18. If the first information report is given by the accused to a police officer and amounts to a confessional statement, proof of the confession 8 is prohibited by S. 25. The confession includes not only the admission of the offence but all other admissions of incriminating facts related to the offence contained in the confessional statement. No part of the confessional statement is receivable in evidence except to the extent that the ban of S. 25 is lifted by S. 27”. 8. Consequently, we are of the considered view that the trial Court has not committed any illegality in acquitting the respondent from the commission of the alleged crime. The appeal, being devoid of merit is, accordingly, dismissed. Sd/- Sd/- (Sanjay S. Agrawal) (Narendra Kumar Vyas) Judge Judge sunita