Introduction
When an accused person presents themselves at a police station and voluntarily discloses the commission of an offence, the officer-in-charge is legally obligated to record the information. However, such a statement poses unique evidentiary questions, particularly regarding its admissibility, the rule against self-incrimination, and the boundary between an admission and a confession. Importantly, Article 20(3) of the Constitution of India provides a fundamental safeguard against self-incrimination, ensuring that no accused person can be compelled to be a witness against themselves. This constitutional protection underpins the statutory framework of the BNSS and BSA, shaping how courts treat FIRs lodged by accused persons.
2. Statutory Mapping: CrPC / Evidence Act to BNSS / BSA
| Provision Under Old Framework | Corresponding Provision Under New Framework | Core Legal Subject |
|---|---|---|
| Section 154, CrPC | Section 173, BNSS | Registration of First Information Report (FIR) |
| Section 162, CrPC | Section 182, BNSS | Statements to police during investigation not to be signed / evidentiary bar |
| Section 25, Indian Evidence Act | Section 23(1), Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam (BSA) | Inadmissibility of confessions made to a police officer |
| Section 27, Indian Evidence Act | Section 23(2), Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam (BSA) | Admissibility of information leading to the discovery of a fact |
| Section 145, Indian Evidence Act | Section 148, Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam (BSA) | Cross-examination as to previous statements in writing |
| Section 157, Indian Evidence Act | Section 160, Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam (BSA) | Corroboration of former statements of a witness |
3. Registration of FIR and the Bar on Police Confessions
Under Section 173 of the BNSS, 2023, the officer-in-charge of a police station must register a case upon receiving information regarding a cognisable offence, irrespective of whether the informant is a victim, an eyewitness, or the accused.
Where the information furnished by the accused constitutes an admission of guilt, it amounts to a confession. Under Section 23(1) of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 (BSA), no confession made to a police officer can be proved against an accused person. This absolute bar applies whether the statement is made before the formal commencement of an investigation or during its course.
4. The Severability Rule and Discovery of Facts
Information provided by an accused in an FIR is often composite—partly confessional and partly non-confessional:
- Confessional Portions: Strictly inadmissible under Section 23(1) of the BSA.
- Non-Confessional Portions: Admissible as admissions under Section 15 of the BSA, provided they establish conduct, background, or facts not admitting guilt.
- Discovery of Distinct Facts: Under Section 23(2) of the BSA, so much of the information as relates distinctly to a fact discovered in consequence of information received from an accused person (e.g., recovery of a weapon, stolen property, or instrument of crime) remains admissible, regardless of being made to a police officer.
5. Evidentiary Value of an FIR Lodged by an Accused
An FIR is not a substantive piece of evidence; it cannot be used as primary proof of the facts stated within it. Its evidentiary utility is strictly circumscribed:
- Non-Confessional FIR by Accused: If the FIR lodged by the accused contains their version of the event without admitting guilt (e.g., a plea of self-defense, cross-complaint, or narrative of an accident), it is admissible under Section 15 of the BSA as relevant conduct (or under Section 6 BSA as res gestae, if closely tied in time).
- Corroboration and Contradiction: Under Sections 148 and 160 of the BSA, previous statements are generally used to contradict or corroborate a witness. Because an accused cannot be compelled to be a witness against themselves (Article 20(3) of the Constitution), an FIR lodged by an accused cannot be used to corroborate or contradict other prosecution witnesses.
- Inadmissibility Against Co-Accused: A non-confessional report filed by an accused person cannot be used as evidence against co-accused individuals, as the maker is an accused and not a witness subjected to cross-examination.
6. Specific Applications: Motor Accidents and Supplementary Lists
6.1. Motor Accident Reports
In motor accident cases, a driver’s report to the police stating that they were driving the vehicle at the time of the incident is generally non-confessional. Reporting an accident is a statutory duty under traffic regulations. As established in State of Gujarat v. Umarbhai Kasainbhai, a mere admission of driving the vehicle does not constitute an admission of criminal negligence or rashness (under Section 106 of the BNS, 2023). Hence, such non-confessional statements are not barred by Section 23(1) of the BSA.
6.2. Property Lists Submitted Before Investigation
Statements made to a police officer after an investigation has commenced fall under Section 182 of the BNSS (formerly Section 162 CrPC) and cannot be used as substantive evidence. However, where a complainant states in the initial FIR under Section 173 BNSS that a full list of stolen property will be provided shortly, and submits that list prior to the formal initiation of investigative steps, that property list is treated as part and parcel of the FIR itself and is not hit by the bar under Section 182 BNSS.
7. Key Judicial Precedents
- Ageshar Swain v. State of Orissa (AIR 1958 Ori 233): Affirmed that where an FIR is lodged by an accused, the confessional parts must be excluded, but non-confessional parts revealing motive, opportunity, or surrounding circumstances remain admissible as conduct.
- Faddi v. State of Madhya Pradesh (AIR 1964 SC 1850): The Supreme Court held that where an FIR lodged by an accused does not contain a confession of guilt, it is admissible in evidence under Section 8 of the Evidence Act (now Section 6/7 of BSA) as conduct reflecting on the narrative of the event.
- Khatri Hemraj v. State of Gujarat (AIR 1972 SC 922): The Supreme Court reiterated that an FIR registered by an accused admitting his guilt cannot be used against him due to the explicit bar under Section 25 of the Evidence Act (now Section 23(1) BSA).
- Bheru Singh v. State of Rajasthan (1994) 2 SCC 467: Reaffirmed that if an FIR lodged by an accused is composite, the confessional part is excluded, but statements relating to facts discovered under Section 27 Evidence Act (now Section 23(2) BSA) are admissible.
The principles laid down in Faddi v. State of Madhya Pradesh (AIR 1964 SC 1850) and Bheru Singh v. State of Rajasthan (1994) 2 SCC 467 remain “good law” even under the re-codified framework of the BNSS and BSA. In Faddi, the Supreme Court clarified that an FIR lodged by an accused, if non-confessional, is admissible as conduct reflecting the narrative of the event.
Bheru Singh reaffirmed the severability rule, excluding confessional portions but permitting admissibility of information leading to discovery under Section 27 of the Evidence Act (now Section 23(2) BSA). These rulings continue to guide courts today, ensuring doctrinal continuity: while protecting the constitutional bar against self-incrimination, they preserve the evidentiary utility of non-confessional disclosures and fact-discoveries under the BNSS/BSA framework.
8. Conclusion
The transition from the CrPC/Evidence Act to the BNSS and BSA preserves the long-standing principle that an accused cannot be compelled to incriminate themselves. Anchored in Article 20(3) of the Constitution, this safeguard ensures that confessional portions of an FIR lodged by an accused remain inadmissible, while non-confessional disclosures and fact-discoveries under Section 23(2) BSA retain evidentiary utility. The continuity of doctrine through precedents like Faddi and Bheru Singh demonstrates that the law balances investigative needs with constitutional rights. Ultimately, an FIR by an accused is a procedural trigger under Section 173 BNSS, but its evidentiary value is carefully circumscribed to uphold fairness, protect liberty, and maintain the integrity of criminal justice.
