CHANDERSEKHER VS STATE OF MADHYA

PRADESH
2015

Submitted by

Aprajita

B.B.A. LL.B. (Hons.)

Roll Number – 2216

Submitted to

Dr. Meeta Mohini

Faculty of Law of Evidence

This Final Draft is submitted for the partial fulfilment of the

course of B.B.A LL.B

21st February, 2021

1
 CHANAKYA NATIONAL LAW UNIVERSITY, PATNA

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

It is a fact that any research work prepared, compiled or formulated in isolation

is inexplicable to an extent. This research work, although prepared by me, is a
culmination of efforts of a lot of people who remained in veil, who gave their
intense support and helped me in the completion of this project.

Firstly, I am very grateful to my subject teacher Dr. Meeta Mohini without the
kind support and help of whom the completion of this project was a herculean
task for me. She donated his valuable time from his busy schedule to help me to
complete this project. I would like to thank him for his valuable suggestions
towards the making of this project.

I am highly indebted to my parents and friends for their kind co-operation and
encouragement which helped me in completion of this project. I am also
thankful to the library staff of my college which assisted me in acquiring the
sources necessary for the compilation of my project.

Last but not the least, I would like to thank the Almighty who kept me mentally
strong and in good health to concentrate on my project and to complete it in
time.

I thank all of them.

APRAJITA

ROLL NO - 2216

2
 DECLARATION

I hereby declare that the project entitled “CHANDERSEKHER VS

STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH ” submitted by me at CHANAKYA
NATIONAL LAW UNIVERSITY is a record of bona fide project work
carried out by me under the guidance of our mentor Dr. Meeta Mohini. I
further declare that the work reported in this project has not been
submitted and will not be submitted, either in part or in full, for the award
of any other degree or diploma in this university or in any other university.

APRAJITA

ROLL NO. 2216

SESSION: 2019 – 2024

CHANAKYA NATIONAL LAW UNIVERSITY, PATNA

3
 TABLE OF CONTENTS

1. INTRODUCTION
• FACTS
• JUDGEMENT
2. EVIDENTIARY VALUE OF F.I.R.
3. ROLE OF SECTION 145 OF INDIAN EVIDENCE ACT
4. SCOPE AND RELEVANCE OF STATEMENT UNDER SECTION 164 OF CR.P.C.
5. OBJECT OF RECORDING 164 STATEMENT.
6. CIRCUMSTANCES UNDER WHICH F.I.R CAN BE CORROBORATED.
7. FOLLOWING CIRCUMSTANCES HAVE BEEN IDENTIFIED AS THE USES OF
FIR WHICH ARE NON-CONFESSION IN NATURE FOR EVIDENTIARY POWER.
8. CASE STUDY OF F.I.R. AS SUBSTANTIVE EVIDENCE
9. QUASHING OF F.I.R.
10. GROUNDS FOR QUASHING F.I.R.
11. DELAY IN RECORDING 166 STATEMENT AND ITS EFFECT.
12. CONCLUSION
13. BIBLIOGRAPHY

4
PROVISIONS

The Prosecution in this case relied upon the circumstances to connect the appellant with the
crimein the trial court, and those includes,

1) Section 161 of Criminal procedure code.

2) Does First information report qualifies as Document under Indian evidence act
1872?
3) Can F.I.R be treated as relevant piece of evidence under Indian evidence act
1872, If not then why?
4) Circumstances under which F.I.R have corroborative value under Indian
evidence act.
5) Section 164 of Criminal procedure code.
6) Provision for quashing of F.I.R.
7) Grounds for quashing F.I.R.

5
INTRODUCTION

This petition has been filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. for invoking the inherent
jurisdiction of this Court seeking relief at FIR registered for the offences under Sections
366, 376 of IPC be quashed. In this case respondent vidya filled an FIR accusing Hari
for offence under section 376 of Cr.PC. A month after that, another FIR was lodged by
Vidya accusing Chandersekhar and Vinod to commit rape on her.

FACTS

● The case in brief is that Vidya was married to Naresh Rajak. The behaviour of Naresh

Rajak and his family members were not good towards the prosecutrix. Therefore, she

returned back to her matrimonial home and started living at village Pahadgarh. Accused

Hari who was residing in the same neighbourhood. He stated intimacy with the prosecutrix.

He insisting her to elope with him.

● He rang up and asked her to go to Kailaras. The prosecutrix went to village Kailaras. From

there, she was taken to Morena by Hari. From Morena they went to Jaipur. she was

subjected to sexual intercourse by Hari. Hari told her that she is now the legal married wife.

Hari continued to commit sexual intercourse with her. She became pregnant. Later she

came to know that Hari is already a married man. The prosecutrix along with her parents

went to Police Station Pahadgarh and lodged the report.

● Subsequently, on 31.08.2014 under Section 161 Cr.P.C., the statement of the prosecutrix

was recorded which is the replica of the FIR. Later her statement was again recorded under

Section 164 (5-A) of Cr.P.C, on 26.09.2014. She has mentioned that applicants Chandra

Shekar, Vinod and one Mukesh took her from her village Pahadgarh to Kailaras, where she

was kept for 4-5 days and these three persons committed sexual intercourse with her. From

6
there, Hari took her to Jaipur. In the statement she also mentioned that in the report she

narrated the names of Chandra Shekar, Vinod and Mukesh. However, the Town Inspector

of the concerning Police Station asked her why she is including the names of these three

persons.

● Subsequently, her statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. was recorded on 30.09.2014 in

which again she reiterated that when she had gone to lodge the report at Pahadgarh Police

Station, she had given the details of petitioner Chandra Shekar, Vinod and another person

Mukesh having committed sexual intercourse with her.

● Charge-sheet has been filed against Hari as well as against the petitioners Chandra Shekar,

Vinod and Mukesh.

● On behalf of the petitioners Chandra Shekar and Vinod, this petition has been filed for

quashing the FIR to discharge the petitioners for the offences under Sections 366, 376 of

IPC registered against them.

● Petition for quashing of FIR - Evidence deposed before trial Court during trial not to be

considered for purpose of quashing of FIR - Only facts mentioned in FIR and other

materialavailable on record produced along with charge-sheet to be taken into

consideration while entertaining petition for quashing of FIR."

JUDGEMENT

Considering the above factual aspects and the legal prepositions, it is emerged that this is a fit
case for quashing FIR as regarding the present petitioners and subsequent criminal
proceeding to secure the ends of justice and to prevent the abuse the process of Court.
Petition is allowed. FIR at Crime No.129/14 and subsequent criminal proceedings as
regarding the present petitioners Chandrashekar and Vinod Kumar is therefore quashed. It is
made clear that this Court has not passed any order regarding the other accused persons.

7
Petitioners claimed that their names have not been reflected in the FIR nor in the statement
under Section 161 of Cr.P.C. written on 31.08.2014: Whereas, after FIR written on
31.08.2014, for the first time, she narrated the names of the petitioners in her statement under
Section 164(5-A) of Cr.P.C. on 26.09.2014 and in her statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C.
dated 30.09.2014. The statement so made by the prosecutrix after a lapse of 26 days is false,
frivolous and afterthought. The petitioners claimed that when their names were not reflected
in the FIR and in the Police statement recorded on 31.08.2014, subsequent mention of their
names are misuse of the process.

8. Learned counsel for the respondents arguing against the submissions made above has
stated that the facts could only be verified and tested after the evidence is adduced. At this
stage, it would not be appropriate to discharge the petitioners. It is further claimed that the
petitioners were named by the prosecutrix in the statement under Section 164 (5-A) Cr.P.C.
and under Section 161 Cr.P.C. recorded on 30.09.2014. Therefore, without adducing any
evidence, the same cannot be rejected.

9. The petitioner has also filed Annexure P-6, a report by L.P. Chanderia, SDOP, Kailaras,
district Morena, to the Superintendent of Police, Morena, on 26.11.2014. This report was
submitted on the complaint of petitioner Chandra Shekar and Vinod in which the SDOP has
held that in Crime No.129/14 registered under Sections 366, 376 of IPC lodged against the
sole accused Hari Singh. In the FIR, the abductee/ prosecutrix has not named the petitioner
Chandra Shekar and Vinod. Petitioners are cousins of accused Hari Singh. The prosecutrix
was being tutted for financial gain by creating social pressure, names of the petitioners have
been included in her statement under Section 164 of Cr.P.C. During investigation it was
found that the petitioners were arrested on 15.11.2014.

This report raises a grave and genuine suspicion in the prosecution case.

10. It is also to be seen that if any such crime was committed at Morena by the petitioners and
other person named Mukesh, why she did not resist the same, why the prosecutrix did not
lodge any report at Morena or Jaipur for about three months. Neither the same has been
reflected on report dated 31.08.2014. If at all the names of petitioners was not included at the
time of lodging report, she could have complained to the Police officers. The report submitted
by SDOP, Kailaras in the complaint made by the petitioners also supports the petitioners'
case.

8
11. In the case of Prashant Barti Vs. State (NCT of Delhi) reported as (2013) 9 SCC 293,
Hon'ble the Supreme Court has given the guidelines that all the steps delineated by this Court
in Rajiv Thapper case (2013) 3 SCC 330 stands satisfied and FIR was quashed. At paragraph
30 of the same, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has propounded the steps to determine the
veracity of a prayer for quashing raised by an accused by invoking the power vested in High
Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. which are:-

"30.1. Step one, whether the material relied upon by the accused is sound, reasonable, and
indubitable, i.e., the material is of sterling and impeccable quality?

30.2. Step two, whether the material relied upon by the accused, would rule out the assertions
contained in the charges levelled against the accused, i.e., the material is sufficient to reject
and overrule the factual assertions1 contained in the complaint, i.e., the material is such, as
would persuade a reasonable person to dismiss and condemn the factual basis of the
accusations as false. 30.3. Step three,whether the material relied upon by the accused, has not
been refuted by the prosecution/complainant; and/or the material is such, that it cannot be
justifiably refuted by the prosecution/complainant?

30.4. Step four, whether proceeding with the trial would result in an abuse of process of the
court, and would not serve the ends of justice?

30.5. If the answer to all the steps is in the affirmative, judicial conscience of the High Court
should persuade it to quash such criminal - proceedings, in exercise of power vested in it
under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. Such exercise of power, besides doing justice to the
accused, would save precious court time, which would otherwise be wasted in holding such a
trial (as well as, proceedings arising therefrom) specially when, it is clear that the same would
not conclude in the conviction of the accused."

12. In a case decided by this Court in Ravikant and OthersVs. State of M.P and other reported
in 2014, it is held that, "(b) Criminal Procedure Code S. 482 – Petition for quashing of FIR -
Evidence deposed before trial Court during trial not to be considered for urpose of quashing
of FIR - Only facts2 mentioned in FIR and other material available on record produced along
with charge-sheet to be taken into consideration while entertaining petition for quashing of
FIR."

1
MCRC.528/2015
2
7 MCRC.528/2015

9
13. In Gian Singh vs. State of Punjab and another reported as 2013 (1) MPLJ (Cri.) 355, the
Hon'ble Apex Court has laid down that, "(b) Criminal Procedure Code (2 of 1974) - Inherent
power of the High Court - Formation of opinion by the High Court before exercise of on
either of the twin objectives (i) to prevent abuse of the process of any Court, or (ii) to secure
the ends of justice, is a sine qua non. (Para 50)". Considering the above factual aspects and
the legal prepositions, it is emerged that this is a fit case for quashing FIR as regarding the
present petitioners and subsequent criminal proceeding to secure the ends of justice and to
prevent the abuse the process of Court.

14. Petition is allowed. FIR at Crime No.129/14 and subsequent criminal proceedings as
regarding the present petitioners Chandrashekar and Vinod Kumar is therefore quashed. It is
made clear that this Court has not passed any order regarding the other accused persons.

10
Does First information report qualify as Document under Indian evidence act 1872?

2. EVIDENTIARY VALUE OF FIRST INFORMATION REPORT

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. Any information relating 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.”10

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.11
FIR is not an encyclopedia. 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

11
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 challanto 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.12

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 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) 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 "evidentiary value of the first information report - Galgotias University." 22 Nov.
1974, 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.

12
3. ROLE OF SECTION 145 OF INDIAN EVIDENCE ACT IN EXAMINING
WITNESS BASING ON 161 AND 164 STATEMENTS

the object of this section is to give the witness a chance of explaining the discrepancies. So
when previous statement is to be proved as an admission, the statement as such should be put
to the witness and if the witness denied having given such a statement, it does not amount to
any admission and if it is proved that he has given such statements, the Attention of witness
to be drawn on that statement.

Section 145 of the Act states that – Cross- examination as to previous statements in writing-
A witness may be cross- examined as to previous statements made by him in writing or
reduced into writing, and relevant to matters in question, without such writing being shown to
him, or being proved, but if it is intended to contradict him by the writing, his attention must
before the writing can be proved, be called to those parts of it which are to be used for the
purpose of contradicting him. The Section 145 of the Act does not speak about as to which
statement recorded under section 162 of the code or 164 of the Code is to be considered as a
previous statement in writing. Thus, both the statements recorded under section 162 and 164
of the Code are the previous statements to invoke section 145 of the Act. Section 145 of the
Act is consisting of two parts– The first part enables the opponent to cross-examine a witness
as to previous statement made by him in writing or reduced to writing, without such writing
being shown to him; The second part gave restriction on the opponent. If the opponent
intended to contradict him by the writing, his attention must before the writing can be proved,
be called to those parts of it which are to be used for the purpose of contradicting him. It will
be needless to mention that while dealing with section145 of the Act, the case of
Tahsildarsingh V/s.State of Uttar Pradesh3 reported in has been a milestone of judicial
business. Without touching the ratio laid down in Tahsildarsing case no criminal case can
accelerates. There can be no hard and fast rules as regards compliance with the requirement
ofsection 145. all that is required is that the witness must be treated fairly and be afforded a
reasonable opportunity of explaining contradictions, after attention drawn to him in fair and
reasonable manner. When prosecution examines a witness and asks him, if he made certain
statements before the police or before magistrate under section 164 of Cr.P.C., and witness

3
A.I.R. 1959 S.C. 1012

13
denies, it is duty of prosecution to confront him with statements and get them marked as
exhibits. So that witness might be afforded an opportunity, either to explain

contradiction and deny them. If the statement of the witness is too long and only one or two
statements in it are to be used for contradiction, mere reading the whole lengthy statement
may confuse the witness and it would not be a fair method of drawing attention of witness. So
it would be proper to put fact by fact in such statement so as to give a fair opportunity to the
witness explain.

SECTION 157 OF THE EVIDENCE ACT IS AS FOLLOWS:

“In order to corroborate the testimony of a witness, any former statement made by such a
witness relating to the same fact, at or about the time when the offence took place, or before
any authority legally competent to investigate the fact may be proved.”

SECTION 145 OF THE EVIDENCE ACT PROVIDES:

“A witness may be crossed-examined as to previous statements made by him in writing or

reduced into writing, and relevant to matters in question, without such writing being shown to
him, or being proved; but if it is intended to contradict him by the writing, his attention must,
before writing can be proved, be called to those parts of it which are to be used for the
purpose of contradicting him.”

These normal rules of making previous statements have been substantially modified in
respect of statements falling under category (b) above.

Further, it may be noted that if any statement made to a police amounts to a confession, such
a confession cannot be proved against a person accused of any offence. However, this bar on
proof of confession made to a police officer is partially lifted by Section 27 of the Evidence
Act which provides:

“… 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.”

The FIR is not substantive evidence, but it can be used to corroborate the informant under
Section 157 of the Evidence Act, or to contradict him under Section 145 of the Act, if the

14
informant is called as a witness at the time of trial. Obviously, the FIR cannot be used for the
purposes of corroborating or contradicting any witness other than the one lodging the FIR.

SCOPE AND RELEVANCE OF STATEMENTS UNDER SECTION 164 OF CR.P.C.

Confession means a formal statement admitting that one is guilty of a crime. Confession is
not defined in the Evidence Act. Confession includes admission, but an admission is not
confession. A confession either admit in terms of the offence or at any rate substantially all
the facts which constitute the offence. If a statement falls short of such a plenary
acknowledgment of guilt, it would not be a confession even though the statement is of some
incriminating fact which taken along with other evidence tends to prove the guilt of the
accused. Such a statement is only an admission but not a confession. The person making it
states something against himself, therefore, it should be made in surroundings, which are free
from suspicion. Otherwise it violates the constitutional guarantee under Article 20(3) so that
person accused of an offence shall be compelled to be a witness against himself. A direct
acknowledgement of guilt should be regarded as confession.

In case of Pakala Narayana Swami Vs emperor4 the question before the court was whether
statements from which the guilt of an accused can be inferred amounts to a confession or not.
it was held that “A confession must either admit in terms the offence, or at any rate
substantially all the facts which constitute the offence. An admission of a gravely
incriminating fact, even a conclusively incriminating fact, is not in itself a confession, for
example, an admission that the accused is the owner of and was in recent possession of the
knife or revolver which caused death with no explanation of any other man’s possession”

4
AIR 1939 P.C. 47

15
OBJECT OF RECORDING 164 STATEMENTS

A question may arise as to why there is need to record the statement under section 164 of the
code in addition to statement recorded under section 162 of the Code. The object of recording
of statements of witnesses under section 164 of the Code is twofold;

(1) to deter witnesses from changing their versions subsequently and

(2) to get over the immunity from the prosecution in regard to information given by the
witnesses under section162 of the code.

The other reason of recording statement of witnesses under section 164 of the code is to
minimize the chances of changing the versions by the witnesses at the trial under the fear of
being involved in perjury. The object behind it that when during the course of investigation
police records the statements under section 162 of the Code they cannot administer oath to
the person making statement and cannot obtained his signature, but under section 164 of the
Code, a magistrate recording statement of a person can administer oath to him and obtain his
signature over the statement Certainly if a person makes and signs a statement then naturally
he comes under moral obligation and chances of his turning hostile will be reduced. But the
evidence of witness whose statement is recorded under section 164 of the Code must be
approached with caution.

16
CIRCUMSTANCES UNDER WHICH FIR CAN BE CORROBORATED

The FIR can have better corroborative value if it is recorded before there is time and
opportunity to embellish or before the informant’s memory fails. Undue or unreasonable
delay in lodging the FIR therefore, inevitably gives rise to suspicion which puts the court on
guard to look for the possible motive and the explanation and consider its effect on the
trustworthiness or otherwise of the prosecution version. The fact that the FIR does not
contain the names of the accused or of the eyewitnesses, is normally an important
circumstance, but the omission loses its significance if the FIR is from a person other than an
eyewitness.

If the FIR is given to the police by the accused himself, it cannot possibly be used either for
corroboration or contradiction because the accused cannot be a prosecution witness, and he
would very rarely offer himself to be a defense witness under section 315 of the code.
Moreover, if the FIR is of a confessional nature it cannot be proved against the accused
informant, because according to Section 25 of the Evidence Act, no confession made to a
police officer can be proved as against a person accused of any offence. But it might become
relevant under section 8 of the Evidence Act as to his conduct. If FIR given by thee accused
person is non- confessional, it may be admissible in evidence against the accused as an
admission under section 21 of the Evidence Act, or again, as showing his conduct under
section 8 of the Evidence Act.

Though, generally speaking the content of an FIR can be used only to contradict or
corroborate the maker thereof, there may be cases where the content becomes relevant and
can be put to some other use also. Omission of important facts affecting the probabilities of
the case, are relevant in judging the veracity of the prosecution case.

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. Any information relating 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

17
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 encyclopedia. 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 challanto 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 of the maker thereof and it cannot be utilised for contradicting
or discrediting the testimony of other witnesses. Although first information report is not

18
expected to be encyclopaedia of events, but an information to the police to be “first
information report” under Section 154(1) 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.

19
FOLLOWING CIRCUMSTANCES HAVE BEEN IDENTIFIED AS THE USES OF
FIR, WHICH ARE NON-CONFESSIONAL IN NATURE, FOR EVIDENTIARY
PURPOSES:

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.

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

Moreover, FIR can even become substantial evidence in following circumstances:

1. During declaration when a person deposing about the cause of his death had died (that is, a
dying declaration). In such case FIR will become admissible under Section 32(1) of the
Indian Evidence Act, 1872.

2. When the injuries are being caused in the presence of Station House officer in a police
station and the injured makes a statement to the SHO saying that accused was injuring him.

3. When the informer who has written the FIR or read it, fails to recall memory those facts
but is, sure that the facts were correctly represented in FIR at the time he wrote it or read it.

20
CASE STUDY : FIR AS SUBSTANTIVE EVIDENCE

Machchi Singh v. State of Punjab,CITATION: AIR 1983 SC 957:1983 Cr LJ 1457

FACTS:

A feud between two families has resulted in tragic consequences. Seventeen lives were lost in
the course of a series of five incidents which occurred in quick succession in five different
villages, situated in the vicinity of each other, in Punjab, on the night between August 12 and
August 13, 1977. The seventeen persons who lost their lives and the three who sustained
injuries included men, women and children related to one Amar Singh and his sister PiaroBai.
In this connection one Machhi Singh and his eleven companions, close relatives and
associates were prosecuted in five sessions cases, each pertaining to the concerned village in
which the killings took place. Machhi Singh was the common accused at each trial. The
composition of his co- accused differed number-wise and identity-wise from trial to trial. At
the conclusion of the series of trials, the accused found guilty were convicted under
appropriate provisions. Four of them were awarded death sentence, whereas sentence of life
imprisonment was imposed on nine of them. They were also convicted for different offences
and appropriate punishment was inflicted on each of them in that behalf. The order of
conviction and sentence gave rise to five murder references and fourteen appeals by the
convicts before the High Court of Punjab and Haryana. Having lost their appeals and the
death sentences having been con-firmed, the appellants have come in appeal by way of
special leave.

ISSUES:

(a) What normal guidelines are to be followed so as to identify the "rarest of rare cases"
formula for imposing death sentence, as spelled out in Bachan Singh v. State of Punjab,
[1980] 2 SCR 864;

(b) Reliability of eye witnesses to a crime under light shed by the lantern in a village to
identify connect an accused to the crime;

(c) invocation of the doctrine of benefit of doubt; and

(d) the effect of non-summoning the magistrate for recording Dying declaration.

21
JUDGMENT ON ISSUE:

The order of conviction (passed by the Sessions Court and affirmed by the High Court) is
inter-alia based on the dying declaration of Mukhtiar Singh. He was fired at and injured soon
after midnight in the early morning of August.

He was removed to hospital on that very day. His police statement (which has been
subsequently treated as a dying declaration) was recorded on the 16th i.e. three days after the
assault. He died on the 18th, two days later. The evidence shows that he was in fit condition
to make a statement and his statement was truly and faithfully recorded. His statement has
been considered to be genuine and true by the Sessions Court and the High Court. It is true
that the dying declaration has not been recorded by a magistrate. But then the evidence shows
that Mukhtiar Singh was making good recovery and having regard to the condition of his
health, no danger to his life was apprehended. It was in this situation that a magistrate was
not summoned. Thus, no fault can be legitimately found on this score. Besides, the only
question of importance now is as regards the creditworthiness of the statement which has
been recorded. Since this statement has been found to be genuine and true nothing can detract
from its value. The evidence provided by the dying declaration is by itself good enough to
support the order of conviction. But this is not all. Also available is the evidence of Ujagar
Singh and his daughter-in-law, Munibai. The evidence of these two witnesses lends full
corroboration to the dying declaration of the victim, and has been rightly relied upon by the
Sessions Court and the High Court. There is no reason to view the evidence doubtfully. The
presence of these two witnesses in the household was natural. Their evidence shows that on
hearing the report of gun they had concealed themselves behind a herd of cattle and had
witnessed the incident from there. The Supreme Court had no reason to disagree with the
view of the Sessions Court and the High Court that their evidence is reliable. There is no
substance in the argument that the culprits could not have been identified as the light shed by
the lantern was not adequate to enable identification. The finding of guilt is thus fully
supported by evidence. The Supreme Court accordingly confirmed the same unhesitatingly.

22
QUASHING OF FIR

FIR quashing is the petition filed before High Court for quashing the FIR and all related
proceedings against the accused. An FIR an be quashed by the High Court if the Court is
satisfied that the accused is falsely implicated and FIR is bogus and frivolous.

The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, elucidates inherent powers of High Court under
Section 482 [1] as follows:

Section 482 enumerates that a High Court has got the power to act in any manner in order to
make the two ends of justice meet.

Under this section, a High Court has the power to quash an FIR if it thinks that the FIR which
has been lodged is a false one and was done with malicious intention to trouble the aggrieved
person. If any person has been implicated and accused of a non-compoundable offence then
he can approach a High Court and file a Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Indian
Constitution read with Section 482 of CrPC. The burden of proof is on the petitioner to prove
that he FIR has been lodged only for malicious reasons and to trouble the petitioner.
Although the Apex Court in its landmark judgment in Madhu Limaye vs the State of
Maharashtra, has laid down some very important principles which modulate the exercise of
the powers of Section 482 CrPC by the court:

The exercise of powers under Section 482 CrPC for FIR quashing is not to be resorted to if
there is a specific provision in code to redress the grievances of the aggrieved party. Powers
under Section 482 CrPC for quashing should be exercised sparingly and to ensure the abuse
of process of any Court or otherwise to secure ends of justice. The powers under Section 482
CrPC should not be exercised for quashing against the express bar of the law engrafted in any
other provision of the code.

23
GROUNDS FOR QUASHING FIR

The Supreme Court of India in the matters of Sundar Babu & Ors vs. State of Tamil Nadu [2]
and State of Haryana vs Bhajan Lal [3] has issued some important guidelines as to the
grounds and conditions for quashing of an FIR under Section 482 CrPC. The said grounds are
listed below:

Where the allegations made in the first information report or the complaint, even if they are
taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety do not prima facie constitute any
offence or make out a case against the accused.

Where the allegations made in the FIR or complaint are so absurd and inherently improbable
on the basis of which no prudent person can ever reach a just conclusion that there is
sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused.

Where the allegations in the first information report and other materials, if any,
accompanying the FIR do not disclose a cognizable offence, justifying an investigation by
police officers under Section 156(1) of the Code except under an order of a Magistrate within
the purview of Section 155(2) of the Code.

Where the allegations in the FIR do not constitute a cognizable offence but constitute only a
non-cognizable offence, no investigation is permitted by a police officer without an order of a
Magistrate as contemplated under Section 155(2) of the Code.

Where the uncontroverted allegations made in the FIR or complaint and the evidence
collected in support of the same do not disclose the commission of any offence and make out
a case against the accused. Where there is an express legal bar engrafted in any of the
provisions of the code or the concerned Act (under which a criminal proceeding is instituted)
to the institution and continuance of the proceedings and/or where there is a specific
provision in the code or the concerned Act, providing efficacious redress for the grievance of
the aggrieved party.

Where a criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with mala fide and/or where the
proceeding is maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance on the
accused and with a view to spite him due to private and personal grudge.

24
The exercise of powers by the High Court under Section 482 CrPC for quashing is based
purely on the subjective assessment of the judge. He has to strike a balance between the
powers of the courts under Section 482 CrPC and the facts of the case. As such no specific
parameters are laid down for the exercise of the powers by the High Court under Section 482
Crpc.

Code of Criminal Procedure contains Section 320 which mandates the compounding of the
criminal proceedings before the courts subordinate to the High Court during the trial or
during the appeal but provisions of Section 482 CrPC have an overriding effect on the same
considering the wide powers vested with the High Court for FIR Quashing.

There are various ways through which FIR an be quashed. Those are as follows:

Quashing of FIR after filing of Charge Sheet The High Court under Section 482 has the
power to quash an FIR even after filing of Charge Sheet by the prosecution. The parties can
also reach a modus vivendi [4]. The accused can also appraise the Court that there is no
material evidence against him even after the investigation in the matter. Another recourse for
the accused is to take pleas of inherent improbability on the basis of entire facts and material
collected against him in the charge sheet. As power given to the High Court under Section
482 are wide enough, High Court an order for quashing of FIR under such circumstances.

Quashing of FIR on the basis of Compromise

The FIR an be quashed on the basis of compromise at any stage by the High Court. The
complainant and accused can enter into a compromise. Both the parties can file a joint
petition under Section 482 CrPC for FIR quashing. Thereafter, the Court will scrutinize the
facts, circumstances and aspects of the matter before passing an order for quashing of FIR. If
the Court is not satisfied with the facts of the compromise, then the High Court can refuse the
quashing on the basis of compromise. The parties can approach the Trial Court if the offence
is compoundable and High Court has refused to quash the FIR.

25
Quashing of FIR in Matrimonial Cases

In certain matrimonial disputes, women file false complaints of cruelty by husband and
relatives of husband under Section 498 A and Section 406 of Indian Penal Code [5].
However, later the parties to the matrimonial dispute enter into a mutual settlement. They
generally reduce it into writing and prepare a Mutual Compromise Deed containing all the
terms and conditions of the settlement. The parties have to be present before the High Court
to record their statements and for the identification.

The parties can enter into a mutual settlement before the Court where the proceedings are
going on or independently. In cases of divorce by mutual consent parties can attend the Court
after their divorce proceedings are over. The Courts, generally accept the same and pass an
order for quashing of FIR on the basis of this Compromise.

Quashing of FIR in Financial Disputes

In case of economic offences, quashing the FIR is the obvious recourse when the financial
dispute is settled after the parties come to terms. Parties often resort to a Compromise Deed
and go for quashing of FIR if certain serious offences other than economic offences are
involved. The High Court can, by the virtue of powers conferred under Section 482 CrPC
pass an order for quashing on the grounds of settlement keeping in mind the facts and
circumstances of the case.

26
DELAY IN RECORDING 161 STATEMENTS AND ITS EFFECTS

Delay in recording of statement of witnesses - Does not necessarily discredit their testimony,
if they are cogent and credible and delay is explained to the satisfaction of Court - The effect
of delay in recording statements of witnesses under section 161 of the Code of Criminal
Procedure was examined by the Hon’ble Supreme court in the case of Harbeer singh vs
sheeshpal , where in honourable apex court observed that delay in recording of statements of
the prosecution witnesses under Section 161 Cr.P.C., although those witnesses were or could
be available for examination when the Investigating Officer visited the scene of occurrence or
soon thereafter would cast a doubt about prosecution case. It is settled law that every delay in
examining witness not fatal subject to explanation given by investigating officer to the
satisfaction of court. In case Ganesh Bhagvan Vs state of Maharastra 2005 DMC 445 the
honourable court observed that though it is a well-settled law that delay in recording the
statement of the witnesses does not necessarily discredit their testimony, but if those
witnesses were or could be available for examination when the Investigating Officer visited
the scene of occurrence or soon thereafter, and even then, the delay has occurred, it would
cast a doubt upon the prosecution’s case.

27
CONCLUSION

Recording of statements under section 161 and 164 of Cr.P.C., plays a pivotal role in criminal
trial. The purpose of contradiction between evidence of a witness before the court and the
statement recorded under section 161 and 164 of Cr.P.C is primarily to shake credit of the
witness, it is only to put the court on guard, to scrutinise the evidence with great care.
Thereby it is duty of all judicial officers to pay special attention to the provisions of section
161, 164 of Code with reference to Section 145 of Evidence Act, so as to enable them to have
clear notions about all relevant provisions in this regard.

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. Any information relating 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.”

28
BIBLIOGRAPHY

Books

Batuk lal, Indian Evidence Act,1872

Websites

www.lexikin.com

www.lawnn.com

www.investopedia.com

www.legalzoom.com

29