Aghnoo Nagesia vs State of Bihar
Aghnoo Nagesia vs State of Bihar (1966)—a landmark Supreme Court decision on the admissibility of confessional statements, notably within FIRs:
Case Background
In August 1963, Aghnoo Nagesia allegedly murdered four family members over a property dispute. He then went to the police station and filed an FIR confessing the murders, providing details that led to the recovery of the bodies, the murder weapon ("tangi"), and a blood-stained cloth from his home. There were no eyewitnesses. (LawBhoomi, Drishti Judiciary)
The trial court convicted him under Section 302 of the IPC and sentenced him to death. The Patna High Court upheld this conviction. (Drishti Judiciary, LawBhoomi)
Key Legal Issue & Supreme Court’s Findings
The main question: Is a confession made in an FIR, outside police custody, admissible under the Indian Evidence Act, 1872?
Section 25 (IEA)
Prohibits the admissibility of any confession made to a police officer.
The Supreme Court held that the entire confessional statement in the FIR is inadmissible, even if made voluntarily, as it violates Section 25. (Drishti Judiciary, iPleaders, Testbook)
Section 27 (IEA) Exception
Allows statements (made while the accused is in police custody) leading to the discovery of facts to be admissible.
However, in this case, Aghnoo was not in custody when he made the FIR; custody (whether actual or constructive) didn’t apply. So Section 27’s exception didn’t apply. (iPleaders, The Criminal Law Blog, Indian Kanoon)
Supreme Court’s Ruling
Allowed Aghnoo’s appeal.
Set aside his conviction and death sentence.
Held that since the FIR was the only evidence, and it was inadmissible under Section 25, there wasn’t sufficient admissible evidence to support the conviction. (legal-wires.com, Drishti Judiciary, Indian Kanoon)
Summary Table
| Legal Provision | Effect in This Case |
|---|---|
| Section 25 (IEA) | Entire confession in FIR inadmissible |
| Section 27 (IEA) | Not applicable—FIR not made in custody |
| Outcome | Conviction overturned due to lack of admissible evidence |
Why It’s Important
This judgment established a critical safeguard against wrongful convictions based solely on confessions recorded in FIRs. It reaffirms that:
Confessions to police officers (not before a magistrate) cannot be used as evidence.
Even discoveries resulting from such a confession cannot override the statutory bans unless the accused was clearly in police custody.
Do write to us if you need any further assistance.
RELATED Blog
0 comments