Non-confessional FIR as admission and complete circumstantial evidence can sustain a murder conviction.

A non-confessional first information report lodged by the accused was admissible against him as an admission because it contained factual statements relevant to the manner of death and was not barred as a confession to police or as an investigative statement. On the murder charge, the circumstantial evidence formed a complete chain: the accused was last seen with the deceased, gave a false account in the report, failed to explain the disappearance, and offered no satisfactory explanation for the separation. Those circumstances were sufficient to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt, and the murder conviction was sustained.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether a first information report lodged by the accused, though not a confession, was admissible in evidence as an admission; (ii) whether the circumstantial evidence established that the accused committed the murder.

Issue (i): whether a first information report lodged by the accused, though not a confession, was admissible in evidence as an admission.

Analysis: The report was not a confessional statement and was not hit by the bar against confessions made to a police officer or by the rule excluding statements recorded during investigation. It contained statements of fact bearing on the issue of how the deceased died and who caused the death. Admissions are relevant and may be proved against the maker, and the earlier authorities relied upon did not exclude a non-confessional first information report from being used as an admission.

Conclusion: The report was admissible against the accused and could be properly used in evidence.

Issue (ii): whether the circumstantial evidence established that the accused committed the murder.

Analysis: The accused was the last person seen with the deceased, gave an untrue account in the report of how he came to know where the body lay, failed to explain the disappearance of the deceased, and gave no satisfactory explanation in court for the separation from the deceased. These circumstances, taken together, were sufficient to complete the chain of incriminating circumstances.

Conclusion: The circumstantial evidence proved the accused's guilt beyond reasonable doubt.

Final Conclusion: The conviction for murder was sustained and the appeal failed.

Ratio Decidendi: A non-confessional first information report lodged by an accused is admissible as an admission against him, and a complete chain of circumstantial evidence, including last-seen proximity and false explanation, can sustain a conviction for murder.

---