Confessional FIR to police is barred in full, except for the limited discovery exception under the evidence rule.

A confessional first information report made by an accused to a police officer is inadmissible in evidence as a whole, not merely as to the express admission of the offence. Where the statement is confessional in substance, its incriminating parts cannot be split into admissible and inadmissible fragments, and the separability test does not apply. Section 27 permits use only of the limited part of the information that distinctly leads to discovery of a fact while the accused is in police custody; apart from that exception and the formal identification of the maker, no part of the confessional report is receivable against the accused. The remaining evidence was insufficient to sustain conviction.

---

---

Issues: Whether a first information report given by an accused to a police officer, containing confessional and incriminating statements, is wholly inadmissible under the law relating to confessions, save to the limited extent permitted by the discovery rule.

Analysis: A confession made to a police officer is absolutely barred by the law, and the bar is not confined to the express admission of the offence alone. Where the statement is confessional in substance, every incriminating part of it that forms part of the same confessional narrative is also excluded. The confession must be treated as a whole, and the separability test is not appropriate for breaking up one confessional statement into admissible and inadmissible fragments. Section 27 operates only to the limited extent that information given by an accused in police custody distinctly leads to discovery of a fact. Apart from that exception, and apart from the formal part identifying the maker of the report, no portion of the confessional report is receivable in evidence against the accused.

Conclusion: The confessional first information report was inadmissible except to the limited extent that it led to discovery under the statutory exception, and the remaining evidence was insufficient to sustain the conviction.

---