Authored By: Vangavolu.Sai Sruthi
KL University Vaddeswaram
CASE TITLE: Aghnoo Nagesia v. State of Bihar
CITATION: AIR 1966 SC 119; (1966) 1 SCR 134
COURT: Supreme Court of India
BENCH: Justice K. Subba Rao, Justice R.S. Bachawat, Justice Raghubar Dayal
DATE OF JUDGMENT: 4 May 1965
PARTIES INVOLVED:
Petitioner: Aghnoo Nagesia
Respondent: State of Bihar
INTRODUCTION
The legal contention between Aghnoo Nagesia and the State illustrates a classic case in evidence law. It is significant as it primarily addresses the admissibility of confessions made to the police officer and involves the interpretation of section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. This case cleared the ambiguity of the scope of the admissibility of confessions made to the police officer.
FACTS OF THE CASE:
On Aug 11, 1963, Aghnoo Nagesia i.e, the petitioner killed four of his family members using an agricultural tool called “Tangi”. He killed each of them in different places and hid the bodies at the respective murder sites. The reason for killing all the four of them was property. The quarrel between him and his aunt took him to have murderous thoughts upon which he killed them.
The rationale for the quarrel is that Ratni, his aunt, gave away the property to her daughter and son-in-law. He claimed that Ratni did not have any sons and also Ratni, being a widow, shall not entitle to the property whereupon the petitioner and his brother are entitled to inherit. The accused himself confessed to the Police officer. The petitioner himself identified the sites and showed the murder weapon to the officer. Medical examination was also done where it was proved that the murder weapon showed by the accused is the reason for their death. A prosecution witness pointed out that the petitioner was seen leaving for the forest around the time of the murder. All the recovery matched the confession exactly.
On the basis of his confession, an FIR was filed under section 302 of IPC. He was sentenced to death by the Judicial Commissioner of Chotanagpur. Later, he again appealed to Supreme Court as the judgement of Hight Court was same as the Lower Court. Hence, the appellant, on special leave, appeals to the Honourable Supreme Court.
ISSUES RAISED:
- Whether the entire portion of a confession to a police officer is inadmissible under Section 25 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872?
- Whether a portion of the confession can be admissible and a portion can be non-admissible?
- How can the exception given under Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, related to confession be treated?
ARGUMENTS ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER :
The petitioner appealed to the Honourable Supreme Court. The Counsel claimed that under section 25 of the Indian Evidence Act the statement made by him to the police officer shall not be used to prove against him. This is the one we put before by the Counsel defense of the accusation.
The confessional statement made to the police officer is inadmissible under section 25 of the Indian Evidence Act. The entire FIR based on the confession made by Aghnoo Nagesia as under section 25 of the Act, can’t be used as evidence against him. The advocate presented the case of Emperor v. Harman Kisha (1934)where the court had stated that entire confessional statement report was inadmissible under section 25 of the Act.
As of section 27 of the Act the confession made during the police custody would be admissible. Since Aghnoo Nagesia was not in police custody during the confessional statement made him, the said statement i.e, the confession would be inadmissible. The entire prosecution case was based on the confessional FIR i.e, like discovery of evidence ( bodies, murder weapon). There is no other evidence to convict him.
The Counsel said that no statement to the police officer can be used as evidence for trial, according to section 31 of Indian Evidence Act the admission cannot be a conclusive proof for any offence. If in case there is estoppel, they had said that there is no eye witness to the occurrence of murder.
ARGUMENTS ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT :
The respondent side’s argument proves the admissible part of the confession which is made to the police officer. The both trial court and High Court provided death penalty under section 302 of Indian Penal Code as we know that entire case is based on confession given by the accused.
The respondent argued that the conviction and sentence awarded by the trial and Hight Court are valid as they were based on evidence of discovery as a result of confession. The confession was undeniable and was directly linked Aghnoo Nagesia to the crime.
The respondent also argued that under section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act, the confessional statement which leads to discovery of evidence is admissible. Here, in the present case, the confession made by Aghnoo Nagesia leads to discovery of bodies and weapon sheets used to cover dead bodies. There is a defence witness who observed petitioner going to the site of the murder at the early hours on the day of the murder.
In a similar case, the argument of accepting a portion of the confession as evidence according to sec 27 the facts received from the accused can be proved.
Here the confession was made to the police officer without any fear, coercion, threat. In this case the accused came to the police station and confessed himself without any involvement of the police officer.
JUDGEMENT
The Court held that under Section 25 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, any confession made to a police officer is absolutely inadmissible against the accused. It makes no difference whether the confession was made before or after the commencement of an investigation, whether the accused was in custody or not, or whether the statement was made orally or in writing. The Court further clarified that an FIR lodged by the accused himself, containing a confession, cannot be used as evidence against him, since it falls within the prohibition of Section 25.
The Court rejected the doctrine of severability in the context of confessions, explaining that a confessional statement cannot be divided into admissible and inadmissible parts. Once it is found to be a confession, the whole statement becomes inadmissible, except for those parts that clearly fall within the scope of Section 27, which permits the admissibility of such information that leads to the discovery of a fact. Only the portion of a statement that directly relates to the discovery of a material fact can be proved, not the entire confession itself.
The Supreme Court noted that apart from the confession, there was no independent or direct evidence linking Aghnoo Nagesia to the murders. The entire prosecution case was built upon the confessional FIR and the discoveries made pursuant to it. Since the confessional statement was barred by Section 25 and the remaining evidence was not sufficient to establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt, the Court acquitted the accused. The judgment thus emphasized the importance of using only admissible and reliable evidence in criminal trials.
IMPACT OF THE JUDGEMENT:
The impact of the Aghnoo Nagesia judgment extends beyond the specific facts of the case. It stands as a cornerstone of Indian criminal jurisprudence, protecting individuals from wrongful conviction and emphasizing that justice must always rest on legally admissible, voluntary, and independent evidence. The ruling continues to guide courts in interpreting confessions and upholding the fundamental rights of the accused.
ANALYSIS OF THE JUDGEMENT:
The Supreme Court, on the bench of Justices Subba Rao, Raghubar Dayal, and R.S. Bachwat, stated that confessional statements made to police officers, including those in the FIR, are inadmissible under Section 25 of the Indian Evidence Act. While the FIR detailed the time, place, and weapon, and led to recovery of the body and weapon, the court found this insufficient for conviction under Section 302 IPC. Citing Faddi v. State of Madhya Pradesh (1964), it clarified that a confession cannot be partially used; it must be taken as a whole or disregarded. Further, under Section 27, only confessions made after arrest leading to discovery are admissible. On these grounds, the Court acquitted the appellant.
LEGAL IMPLICATIONS :
Section 25 of The Indian Evidence Act, 1872 : Bars confessions made to police officers from being admitted as evidence
“No confession made to a [police-officer] [As to statement made to a police officer investigating a case shall be proved as against a person accused of any offence.”
Section 27 of The Indian Evidence Act, 1872: Provides an exception, allowing the admissibility of a confession to a police officer to the extent that it leads to the discovery of a material fact.
“ Provided 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 discovered, may be proved.”
CONCLUSION:
Aghnoo Nagesia vs state of Bihar 1966 is a landmark case in the Indian law, relating to the law of evidence. This case addresses the admissibility of confessional statement made to the police officer . Aghnoo Nagesia was a convict for the murder of 4 people the trail court and the high court has awarded the death penalty . Aghnoo Nagesia was convicted for the murder based on his confession made to the police which helps in discovery of evidence. But the Supreme court ruled that the entire confessional FIR was inadmissible under section 25 of the Indian evidence act . And the Supreme court has stated that confession cannot be split into admissible and non-admissible .
And the supreme court said that the evidence found was not sufficient to convict aghnoo Nagesia under 302 of Indian penal code and the remaining evidences were not led to the threshold requirement for a conviction. And there is no direct witness Hence due to lack of proper evidence the supreme court made appellant free of charges .
REFEREANCE(S):
