Group: 6

EVIDENTIARY VALUE OF F.I.R.

Code of Criminal Procedure - 1

Submitted to: Dr. Shruti Goel

Submitted by: Devinderpal Singh

16038
TABLE OF CONTENTS
INTRODUCTION........................................................................................................ 3

OBJECTIVES .............................................................................................................. 3

EVIDENTIARY VALUE OF FIR .............................................................................. 4

Does FIR has Substantive Values or Its Just an Important Piece of Evidence? .... 4

The main reasons why FIR does not have any substantive evidentiary value: ...... 4

CERTAIN EXCEPTIONS, WHEN AN FIR CAN BE USED AS A

SUBSTANTIVE PIECE OF EVIDENCE ................................................................. 5

For the purpose of corroboration and contradiction the information of the

informant- ................................................................................................................. 8

Statements or information by the informant as dying declaration in FIR. ...... 10

F.I.R. AND AN ADMISSION UNDER SECTION 21 OF THE EVIDENCE ACT

...................................................................................................................................... 12

F.I.R AND RECOVERY OF CERTAIN ARTICLES ON PLACE ON

OCCURRENCE:........................................................................................................ 12

EVIDENTIARY VALUE OF FIR SENT WITH DELAY TO MAGISTRATE

UNDER SECTION 157, CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, 1973 ............... 13

WHEN THE F.I.R. WAS, LODGED OR RECORDED AFTER PREPARATION

OF INQUEST REPORT: .......................................................................................... 14

DEATH OF INFORMANT - VALUE OF FIR ....................................................... 15

F.I.R. IS A PUBLIC DOCUMENT: ......................................................................... 15

DIFFERENCE BETWEEN FIR AND ACTUAL EVIDENCE TENDERED IN

THE COURT.............................................................................................................. 16

CONCLUSION .......................................................................................................... 17

BIBLIOGRAPHY ...................................................................................................... 18

2
INTRODUCTION

In layman’s word, First Information Report (FIR) is the knowledge or information of

any occurrence especially related to crime or the subjects which are either restricted or
prohibited by law. The term FIR is not defined anywhere in our law but Section
154 1 & 155 2 of CrPC talks about the cognisance of any information related to
cognizable offences and non-cognizable offences respectively. The purpose of FIR is
to bring the law into the action of cognisance of any offence, and with the cognisance,
it is the duty of the state to offer redressal to the victim and protect the society from
such offences.

The statements made to the police are if three categories- a) A statement which has been
recorded as an First Information Report ( herein after referred to as FIR) b) statement
recorded by the police in the course of investigation c)a statement recorded by the
police but not falling under the above (a) and (b) category. None of the above statements
can be considered as substantive evidence, that is to say, as evidence of facts stated
therein. Because it is not made during trial, it is not given on oath, nor is it tested by
cross- examination. If the person making any such statement to the police subsequently
appears and gives evidence in court at the time of trial, his former statement could ,
however be used to corroborate or to contradict his testimony according to the
provisions of the Evidence Act, 1872.

OBJECTIVES

● To know about the role of the first information report in evidence.

● To have a brief study on the evidentiary value of FIR.

● To study when FIR can be accepted has evidence.

● To study the situations when fir can became evidence.

1
Section 154 criminal procedure code, 1973.
2
Section 155 criminal procedure code, 1973.

3
In, State of Haryana v/s Bhajan Lal3 it was held that in a condition where there is an
information and that information must disclose a cognizable offence. And if any such
information before an officer satisfies the requirements of Section 154(1), the said
police officer has no other option except to enter the substance thereof in the prescribed
form.

EVIDENTIARY VALUE OF FIR

The evidentiary value of FIR is very important than any other statements during the
process of cognisance of any offence or at the time of initiating the investigation about
information recorded as per Section 154 or 155 of CrPC. But at the same time the
established principle of law that FIR cannot be assumed as a substantive piece of
evidence and can only be considered as an important piece of evidence. The reason for
which the FIR is regarded as an important piece of evidence is- because of its nature
that it is the first information of the cognisance of any offence, and it can be of very
important nature as it will help in the initiation of investigation about the offences.

In, Pandurang Chandrakant Mhatre v. State of Maharashtra,4 it was seen that ‘it is
fairly well settled that FIR is not a substantive piece of evidence and it can be used only
to impeach the creditworthiness of the testimony recorded by the maker and it cannot
be used for the purpose of contradicting or discrediting the testimony of other
witnesses’.

Does FIR has Substantive Values or Its Just an Important Piece of Evidence?

The main reasons why FIR does not have any substantive evidentiary value:

1. Because the statements in the FIR are not made on oath.

2. Because the statements in the FIR are not made during the trial or at the time
of proceedings.

3. Because the statements recorded in FIR has no cross-examination in the

Court.

3
[AIR 1992 SC 604].
4
2009(10) SCC 773.

4
 4. Because the statements recorded by the police officers are not admissible in
court.

The reasons why FIR are treated as an important piece of evidence:

1. For corroborating the statements made by the person who recorded the FIR.

2. For cross-examination of the statements made by the person in the FIR.

3. For refreshing informer’s memory.

4. For impeaching the creditworthiness of the informer.

5. For the purpose of ascertaining the general facts like the identity of accused,
witnesses, time of offences etc.

Generally FIR has no evidentiary value but in few circumstances it carries evidentiary
Value, as in the case of dying declaration. These circumstances have been mentioned
in the cases mentioned in this chapter at relevant place. In State of Bihar V. Veer
Paswan and Others the Supreme Court decided that the informant- Satendra Kumar
Sharma has not been examined as such; First Information Report can not be used as
Substantive piece of evidence inasmuch as on this ground as well the appellants are
entitled to an order of acquittal. The submission is totally misconceived. Even if the
first information report is not proved, it would not be a ground for acquittal, but the
case would depend upon the evidence led by prosecution. Therefore, non-examination
of the informant cannot in any manner affect the prosecution case.

CERTAIN EXCEPTIONS, WHEN AN FIR CAN BE USED

AS A SUBSTANTIVE PIECE OF EVIDENCE
The Supreme Court has observed on the said subject matter, stating that “the first
information report gives information of the commission of a cognizable crime. It may
be made by the complainant or by any other person knowing about the commission of
such offence. It is intended to set the criminal law in motion.5 Any information relating

5
"Evidentiary Value of First Information Report (FIR) - ResearchGate."

5
to the commission of a cognizable offence is required to be reduced to writing by the
officer in charge of the police station which has to be signed by the person giving it and
the substance thereof is required to be entered into a book kept by such officer in such
form as the State Government may prescribe. It cannot be used as evidence against the
person making it, if in case, he himself is accused in the matter, neither to corroborate
or contradict other witnesses. It is not the requirement of law that the minutest details
be recorded in the Fir lodged immediately after the occurrence. The fact of the state of
mental agony of the person making who generally is the victim himself , If not dead, or
the relations or associates of the deceased victim apparent under the shock of the
occurrence reported has always to be kept in mind.
The FIR is the first version of the incident as received by the police. The statements in
the FIR must naturally get their due weight. An FIR is not a substantive piece of
evidence. The Court has to consider other evidence for deciding whether a case should
stand or fall. An FIR, being not a substantive evidence, it can be used as a previous
statement for the purposes of either corroborating its makers or for contradicting him.
The statement of a victim of rape in cross-examination which was not there in the FIR
could not be used for contradicting her.
FIR is not an encyclopaedia. It is only to set the law in motion. It need not elaborate but
should contain necessary allegations to constitute cognizable offences. As per section
154 of the Criminal Procedure Code, stating the use of FIR, “a FIR is not a substantial
piece of evidence. It can only be used for corroborating or contradicting its maker. It
cannot be used to corroborate or contradict other witnesses...” Further," corroboration
of its maker is permissible, but the first information report cannot be used as substantive
evidence or corroborating a statement of third party...”The fact that a minute details are
not mentioned should not be taken to mean the non-existence of the fact stated. An FIR
was made by close relatives of the deceased. Its reliability was not allowed to be
doubted on the ground that it was highly improbable that a close relative would leave
the victim in a hospital and would himself go to the police station, particularly so when
other relatives had also arrived at the hospital. There was no delay in recording the FIR
and sending the challan to the court. Absence of the names of the accused in the inquest
report was of no value because the investigating officer and the officer conducting
inquest were not questioned on that point. It was held in Pandurang Chandrakant
Mhatre v. State of Maharashtra, that it is fairly well settled that first information report
is not a substantive piece of evidence and it can be used only to discredit the testimony

6
of the maker thereof and it cannot be utilised for contradicting or discrediting the
testimony of other witnesses. Although first information report is not expected to be
encyclopaedia of events, but an information to the police to be “first information report”
under Section 154(1)6 must contain some essential and relevant details of the incident.
A cryptic information about commission of a cognizable offence irrespective of the
nature and details of such information may not be treated as an FIR. An FIR recorded
without any loss of time is likely to be free from embroideries, exaggerations and
without anybody intermeddling with it and polluting and adulterating the same with
lies. The purpose of, FIR is to obtain the earliest account of a cognizable offence, before
there is an opportunity for the circumstances to be forgotten and embellished. It is well
settled that FIR is not a substantive piece of evidence and can be used to corroborate or
contradict the statement of the maker thereof. It is also equally established that
trustworthiness of the prosecution story can also be judged from the FIR. Besides first
information report is relevant as it may be a part of the res gestae.
For the purpose of summoning someone mentioned in a FIR but has not been charge
sheeted, the FIR can be taken into consideration because it is evidence at that stage.
Where an FIR is registered on the basis of a written complaint submitted to the police
and there was no mention of the presence of some persons as eye- witnesses in it, it was
held that the presence of those eye-witnesses was rightly disbelieved.
As already said, the FIR is not substantive evidence; however its importance as
conveying the earliest information regarding the occurrence of a crime cannot be
disputed. Moreover, it can be used to corroborate the informant under Section 157 of
Indian Evidence Act, 1872, or contradict the witness under Section 145 of the same Act
if the informant is called as a witness in the trial. Following circumstances have been
identified as the uses of FIR, which are non-confessional in nature, for evidentiary
purposes:7
1. For corroboration purposes: It cannot be ignored altogether and can be used to
corroborate the statement of the eyewitnesses.

2. For contradicting the evidence of person giving the information.

3. For proving as an admission against the informer.

6
Section 154(1) criminal procedure code, 1973.
7
Section 157 & 145 criminal procedure code, 1973.

7
4. For refreshing informer’s memory.

5. For impeaching the credit of an informer.

6. For proving informer’s conduct.

7. For establishing identity of accused, witnesses & for fixing spot time as relevant facts
under Section 9, the Indian Evidence Act, 1872

For the purpose of corroboration and contradiction the information

of the informant-

Section 145 of Indian Evidence Act, talk about ‘A witness may be cross-examined as
to previous statements made by him for the purpose of contradicting him’. The scope
of Section 145 is to deal with the methods of contradicting the information of the
informer. Under Section 153(2) of the Evidence Act, a witness may be asked any
question for the purpose of impeaching his impartiality and permits oral statement to
be used for contradiction. But the present Section which is Section 145 of the Indian
Evidence Act, only deals with the method of contradicting previous statements of
witness in writing by cross-examination. The rule will apply where a witness is not a
party to the suit and would not apply when a party to the suit is examining himself as a
witness.

Section 145 of Indian Evidence Act has 2 basic principles which are- According to the
first part- a witness may be cross-examined as to the previous statement made by him
in writing or is reduced into writing without showing the writing to him or proving the
same. And the second part is intended to contradict him through cross-examination
where the previous statement is in writing. The main objective of this provision is either
to test the memory of witness or to contradict him by previous statements in writing.

In, Ram Chandra V. State of Haryana,8 the Supreme Court observed that the contents
and information of the FIR can only be used for the purpose of contradiction &
corroboration the facts stated by the informer or of any other witness.

8
1981 AIR 1036.

8
Section 157 9 of the Evidence Act which talks about- “Procedure for investigation
preliminary inquiry”. The FIR is a kind of evidence whose contradictory and
creditworthiness values is only subjected to the person who lodged a FIR or the
informer of the offence and the principles laid down under Section
145, 154(2) and 157 of Indian Evidence Act can’t be used for the purpose of
contradicting and checking the creditworthiness of any other witness other than the
person who is the informer of the offence. And these principles are usually benefiting
the accused in way of contradicting and checking the creditworthiness of the informer.

And it has been held by the Apex Court of India that with regard to FIR there can only
be two possibilities which are- corroborating and contradicting the informer; and hence
it is observed that FIR cannot be considered as a substantive piece of evidence in any
manner.

In, Hasib v/s State of Bihar10 it was held by the Supreme Court that considering the
principles of Section 157 and 145 of the Indian Evidence Act, it is quite obvious that
the FIR can only be used for the purpose of corroborating or contradicting the informant
the one who lodging the FIR.

In, The State of Orissa v. Makund Harijan and another,11 the Orissa High Court held
that FIR can only be used to corroborate or contradict the maker of FIR. But omissions
of certain important facts, affecting the probabilities of the case, are relevant under
Section 11 of the Evidence Act in judging the veracity of the prosecution case.

If the informant of any certain offence is accused himself, then it cannot be possibly to
use the facts or information of the FIR for the purpose of corroboration or contraction
because accused cannot be a prosecution witness, and he would very rarely offer
himself to be a defense witness under Section 315 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
It is noted that if the F.I.R. is of a confessional nature, then again it cannot be proved
against the accused as such actions are prohibited by Section 25 of the Evidence Act.

Where confession made to a police officer cannot be used or proved against a person
who is accused of a certain offence. But at the same time if the accused admits his act

9
Section 157 oF Indian Evidence Act, 1872.
10
(1972) 4 SCC 773.
11
(1983) Crl. LJ. 1870.

9
then the F.I.R. is admissible as evidence under Section 21 of the Evidence Act. And if
the F.I.R. contains not only the confession of the accused but also relates to several
other matters which are relevant to the trial or the procedure, then the provisions make
the latter admissible.

Though the contents of F.I.R. can be used only to contradict or corroborate the
informant, still there may be cases where the contents become relevant and the F.I.R.
can be used as a part of the informant’s conduct under Section 8 and 11 of the Evidence
Act.

Statements or information by the informant as dying declaration in

FIR.

The word “Dying Declaration” means any statement is written or verbal of relevant
facts made by a person, who is dead or it is the statement of a person who had died
explaining the circumstances of his death.

The concept of dying declaration was evolved from a legal maxim, ‘nemo mariturus
presumuntur mentri’ i.e. a man will not meet his maker with a lie in his mouth.
Although it may sound impractical but our law has adopted this concept and functions
accordingly. Section 32(1) specifically deals with the concept of dying declaration in
respect of a cause of death and it is assumed that such statements are relevant even
whether the person who made them was not at the time when they were made.

In Uka Ram v. State of Rajasthan,12 the Apex Court defined dying declaration in a way
that, “when a statement is made by a person in the threat of his death or as to any
circumstances which cause threat or results into his death, and when the cause of his
death comes in question the statements made by him are admissible as evidence, such
statement in law are compendiously called dying declaration.”

13
The Supreme Court in deciding P.V. Radhakrishna v. State of Karnataka,
Appeal held that ‘the principle on which a dying declaration is admitted in evidence is
indicated in the Latin maxim, ‘nemo morturus procsumitur mentri’, which means that
a man will not meet his maker with a lie in his mouth. Information lodged by a person

12
A.I.R. 2001 S.C. 1814.
13
(crl.) 1018 of 2002.

10
who died subsequently relating to the cause of his death is admissible in evidence under
this clause.

In K.R. Reddy v. Public Prosecutor,14 the evidentiary value of dying declaration was
observed as:-

“The dying declaration is admissible under Section 32 & because the statement not
made on oath so that its truth could be tested by cross-examination, the court has to
observe the closest inspection of the statement before acting upon it. And it is also
assumed that the words of a dying man are of very serious nature because a person on
the verge of death is not likely to tell lies or to connect a case to a malice prosecution
of an innocent person. Once the court is satisfied that the dying declaration is true &
voluntary and are not influenced, then the statements can be sufficient to prove the
conviction even without further corroboration.”

The evidentiary value of FIR in the circumstances of dying declaration comes from the
concept that- A dying declaration can also be recorded by public servants, or by a doctor
as well, where the victim is hospitalised and is badly burnt or injured and wants to make
a statement, the doctor can also record the same and make a note of that statement.
Although, it is advisable that the dying declaration should be made to the magistrate
itself or in the presence of magistrate but if there is a condition where no such possibility
is seen then the dying declaration can also be recorded by the police officers, although
the court discourages such declaration to the police officer but if the condition and
circumstances are of such a nature that no other possibilities are seen, then the dying
declarations written by the police officers are also considered by the courts.

In, Kapoor Singh V. Emperor15 the court observed that the FIR lodged by the deceased
person can be admissible as a piece of evidence in the court if the FIR is relating and
explaining the circumstances of his death. Also in the case of Sukhar V. State of UP,16
it was observed that if the dying declaration in the FIR is not sufficient to ascertain the
facts and reasons for the cause of his death, even though the FIR has enough

14
1976 AIR 1994, 1976 SCR 542.
15
(AIR 1930 Lah. 450).
16
(1999) 9 SCC 507

11
information related to the accused and details of the incident. Then the information
cannot be considered as dying declaration.

In the case of Maniram V. State of Madhya Pradesh, 17 the dying declaration was
recorded by the doctor but the doctor did not attest the consciousness report of the
deceased and also there was no thumb signature on the dying declaration, in that case,
the FIR has lost its credibility and it was difficult to rely on the dying declaration.

F.I.R. AND AN ADMISSION UNDER SECTION 21 OF

THE EVIDENCE ACT

The F.I.R. is admissible under Section 157 of the Evidence Act, as corroborating the
testimony of the informant or for contradicting him under Section 145 or under Section
8 of the Evidence Act as evidence of his conduct. It may also be admissible as his
admission when the accused himself makes the first information report. Section 25 of
the Evidence Act lays down that if it is in the nature of a confession, being made to a
police officer, it is admissible, and it cannot be proved as against him. If it is not a
confession, but contains admissions made by the accused, F.I.R. is admissible in
evidence under Section 21 of the Evidence Act.18 :

F.I.R is not a statement made to a police officer during the course of investigation.
Section 25 of the Evidence Act and Section 162 of the Code of Criminal Procedure do
not bar its admissibility. The report is an admission by the accused of certain facts
which have a bearing on the question to be determined by the courts under Section 21
of the Evidence Act. Admission of an accused can be proved against him.

F.I.R AND RECOVERY OF CERTAIN ARTICLES ON

PLACE ON OCCURRENCE:

When any crime occurs there may be countless number of articles. It is not necessary
to mention in F.I.R. the articles found at the place of occurrence.19

17
(AIR 1994 SC 840).
18
State ofRajasthan v. Shiv Singh; 1962(1) Cri. L.J. 82 : A.I.R. 1962 Rajasthan 3.
19
State ofU.P. v. Sahai, 1983 All. C.C. 79(Sum.) S.C.

12
EVIDENTIARY VALUE OF FIR SENT WITH DELAY TO
MAGISTRATE UNDER SECTION 157, CODE OF
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, 1973

Element of delay in registering the complaint or sending the same to the i jurisdictional
Magistrate by itself would not be fatal to the prosecution, if the evidence adduced by
the prosecution was worthy of credence.20

The extraordinary delay in sending FIR to the Magistrate is a circumstance which

provides a legitimate basis for suspecting that the FIR was recorded much later than the
stated date and hour affording sufficient time to the prosecution to introduction
improvements and embellishment and set up a distorted version of the occurrence. In
such a case, the evidence of eye-witnesses cannot be accepted at its face value. The
same view was taken in another important case.

When the FIR has been received by the magistrate with inordinate delay, then the entire
prosecution case must be viewed with suspicion.

Where the express massage which the police official sent to the jurisdictional
Magistrate reached the said Magistrate at his place after nearly 1-1/2 days after the said
complaint was registered, there being no explanation as to this inordinate delay only
adds to the doubtful circumstances surrounding the prosecution case.21

When there is such delay the prosecution must explain it by examining the constable
who has dispatched such report to the Magistrate. However, in some cases, it has been
held that Section 157, Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, only states that the FIR should
be dispatched forthwith and does not say that the time of dispatch must be noted
therein.22

The requirement of Section 157, Criminal Procedure Code to forthwith send a copy of
F.I.R. to the Magistrate is an external check. Unexplained delay in receipt of special
report by Magistrate creates a doubt and puts the court on guard. Mere delay in holding

20
Mohinder Singh v. State of Punjab, 2006(4) RCR(Criminal) 273(SC).
21
Suresh Chaudhary v. State of Bihar, (2003) 4 SCC 128: 2003 (2) Crimes 48 (S.C.).
22
Om Prakash v. State of U.P., A.I.R. 1983 S.C. 431: 1983 Cri. LJ. 831.

13
inquest proceedings and in delivery of F.I.R. to local Magistrate cannot be said to have
rendered F.I.R. ante-timed or ante-dated.23

WHEN THE F.I.R. WAS, LODGED OR RECORDED

AFTER PREPARATION OF INQUEST REPORT:

F.I.R. loses all authenticity if it is written after inquest report. 24 When there is
discrepancy of distance in F.I.R. and inquest report. Then it must give rise to an
inference that the F.I.R. is ante-timed and attached to the statement of F.I.R. and eye-
witnesses whose names find place in F.I.R.

When the time of lodging F.I.R. was shown 7.30 A.M. in F.I.R. but in inquest it vas
firstly indicated as 10 A.M. but later on interpolated to 7.30 A.M. then inference should
be made that F.I.R. was ante-timed and not lodged at time as alleged by prosecution.25
But mere delay in holding inquest proceedings cannot be said to have rendered F.I.R.
ante-timed or anti-dated.26

When there is difference in serial order of names of accused in F.I.R. and inquest report,
then said difference would not invariably east doubt on its existence. 27 A similar
question arose in the ease of Shyama Charan and others v. State,28 wherein a Division
Bench of this Court took note of such a lapse and observed that such a difference of
distance is a catch point which goes to indicate that the F.I.R. was not in existence at
the time when the inquest report was being prepared.

The inquest report further shows that in the column of distance of the Police Station
from the spot, the distance is mentioned as 2 K.M. However, this distance is noted to
be 3 K.M. in the Chick F.I.R. The circumstance, coupled with other circumstances also
creates doubt whether the First Information Report was in existence at the time of the
preparation of the inquest report.29

23
Ishwer Singh v. State, 1985 Cri. LJ. 1625 : 1984(2) Crimes 127.
24
Balaka Singh v. State of Punjab . A.I.R. 1975 S.C. 162 : 1975 Cri. L.J. 1734.
25
Satya Narayan v. State, 1985 Cri. LJ. 966 : 1985 All. Cr. R. 78.
26
Ishwar Singh v. State, 1985 Cri.LJ. 1625 : 1984(2) Crimes 127.
27
Kunwar v. State of U.P., 1993 A. Cri. R. 241.
28
1985 All. Criminal Judgments 8.
29
Bijendra v. State of U.P., 1993(2) Crimes 735(737) All. D.B.

14
DEATH OF INFORMANT - VALUE OF FIR

There is no law that the FIR cannot be taken into consideration on the death of
Informant. The FIR cannot be thrown out on the death of Informant. The case will have
to be proved on the basis of evidence collected by the Prosecution during the course of
investigation and FIR is not evidence in the case, it is only a piece of information with
the police records with which the system comes into motions and investigation is
stopped it. A.P. High Court in Edgia Jagannath Goud and others v. State,30 held that:

FIR is only used for the purpose of corroborating or contradicting if the person who has
complained is examined. In a case where the first informant died before he could depose
before the Court at best the purpose of corroborating or contradicting its contents by
the persons would not be possible. Keeping that in view, that the accused could not
cross-examine the first informant the other evidence produced can be looked into. As
the

FIR is not a substantial piece of evidence it should not have any effect on the
prosecution case if its contents were not proved by the person who gave it because of
his death. In view of the judgment of the Supreme Court in Hakirath Singh v. State of
Punjab, 31 this court felt that non-examination of the complainant on account of his
death would not be factual on its own to the prosecution case and it will depend upon
facts of each case. If the prosecution story as revealed by the witnesses in the Court is
directly contradictory to the contents of the FIR it may have one effect and on the other
hand if the contents of FIR are in conformity with the evidence adduced during the trial
it may have altogether a different effect.

F.I.R. IS A PUBLIC DOCUMENT:

Whenever there is a bonafide requirement, the Court to which F.I.R. is forwarded by

the Police, can grant certified copy of F.I.R. or payment of legal fee by the accused as
it is a certified copy of a public document.32

30
2004(2) ALD (Cri.) 241 (A.P.).
31
AIR 1997 SC 323(para 11).
32
Jayanti Bhai Lalu Bhai Patel v. State of Gujarat, 1992(2) Crimes 253 (Gujarat).

15
FIR is a public document prepared under Section 154 Cr.P.C. A certified copy of the
FIR can be given in evidence (getting of FIR can be by the accused - accused is entitled
to get a copy of the FIR only under the orders of the Court after the Court has taken
cognizance of the case and not before but the accused can get a copy of FIR on payment
from the Court). The officer-in-charge of a Police Station is not authorized to give copy
of FIR to the accused. If he gives copy of the FIR to the accused he will be liable under
Section 29 of the Police Act, 1961.

Section 74 of the Indian Evidence Act reads:-

“Public documents: - The following documents are public documents,-

(1) Documents forming the acts or records of the acts- I

(i) of the sovereign authority,

(ii) of official bodies and Tribunals, and

(iii) of public officers, legislative, judicial and executive, of any part of India
or of the Common Wealth, or of a foreign country.

(2) Public records kept in any State of private documents.”

DIFFERENCE BETWEEN FIR AND ACTUAL

EVIDENCE TENDERED IN THE COURT

If there is difference between FIR and the version narrated in the Court, it is always a
matter of gave suspicion to the Court. Where there is no mention of certain important
facts in the FIR which are later brought to the Court as substantial evidence, the Court
would be right in disbelieving that part of the evidence.

There is no consequence on account of minor discrepancies between the statements of

the case as given in the FIR and appearing in the evidence of eye witnesses. Where the
facts stated in the FIR are based on hearsay much importance cannot be attached to the
discrepancies which are to be found in it. The statements of the FIR which in many
cases are given under circumstances of haste and at times without proper knowledge of
the true facts, ought not to be reviewed too narrowly.

16
CONCLUSION

After ascertaining the provision it can be assumed that the FIR is an important report
and if duly recorded provides valuable evidence. Now it can easily be considered as an
important and a valuable piece of evidence in any trial either for the purpose of
corroborating evidence or for contradicting witnesses, Therefore, it becomes necessary
that such report to be recorded in all circumstances and it is the duty of the police officer
to initiate the investigation as soon as the information is received. In the discussion of
the evidentiary value of the FIR, it is also concluded that the statements recorded by the
police officers are not admissible in the court of justice and hence the ascertainment of
the facts by the police officer’s also comes under the umbrella of important piece of
evidence but not a substantive piece of evidence. FIR can sometimes also be considered
as Substantial Evidence but in most of the cases it ends up having a just value of an
important piece of evidence. Hence we can assume that FIR is an important and a
circumstantial piece of evidence.

FIR is an important report and if duly recorded provides a valuable evidence. It is a

valuable piece of evidence in any criminal trial either for corroborating evidence or for
contradicting witnesses, FIR can be used to corroborate the Informant under S. 157 of
Indian Evidence Act, 1872, or contradict the witness under S. 145 of the same Act if
the informant is called as a Tribunal. The Supreme Court accordingly confirmed the
same unhesitatingly. Therefore, it becomes necessary that such report be recorded in all
circumstances especially where the person has come to the police station to lodge an
FIR against a particular crime. FIR considered as Substantial Evidence in certain cases
which the paper will discuss and in other circumstances FIR can be used as non
confessional in nature for evidentiary purpose.

17
BIBLIOGRAPHY
 “F.I.R, Criminal Justice and Supreme Court. Allied publication 2005 , Pp-05-
19

 R.V Kelkar’s Criminal Procedure, 6th edition, 2014, Eastern Book Company
 Takwani, “Criminal Procedure”, ed.3, pg. 69 , lexis nexis student series

 Introduction to F.I.R, Constitutional responsibility of the State, administration

of Criminal Justice through police & Judiciary ( online PDF).

 Miller,HandWright,R.“CriminalProcedure”,AspenLawandBusiness.

 Rao, M.S., “Criminal Trial Practice and Procedure”, 4th edn, S. Gogia and
Co, Hyderabad, 1999.
 http:// www. manupatra.com.
 http://www.outlookindia.com.
 http://www.timesofindia.indiatimes.com.
 http://www.indianexpress.com.
 http://www.lexisnexis.com.
 http://www.kiranbedi.com.

18