mehnatCan an FIR be used as evidence?
Top of PageAnother interesting theme explored by Madabhushi Sridhar in his book (see in this article) is whether an FIR can be used as evidence. He says that an FIR cannot be considered to be evidence. It is just a piece of information which sets the legal wheels in motion and forms the basis for the investigation which is to be carried out by the police. The statements given by witnesses, the arguments given by counsel, the evidence laid on the table in court, these are all superior to the FIR in terms of deciding the case at hand. If these items corroborate the FIR, then the chances of conviction increase multifold. If however, they contradict the FIR, then the case becomes weak, because the FIR cannot be used to overrule these items. The truth emerges in court, or at the very least it is deemed to emerge in court, and the FIR is not the deciding factor in such proceedings.
The foregoing should give great courage and hope to BNS 85 / IPC 498a accused men and their parents, because this is clear (paraphrased) indication by a senior teacher of law that a good criminal lawyer can destroy the entire edifice of lies generated by your BNS 85 / IPC 498a wife, her family, and her sponsors. It should also give hope and courage to such men who have been randomly accused of molestation / eve-teasing / rape etc.
Supreme Court decisions which negate use of FIR as evidence
Top of PageThere are a number of Supreme Court judgments wherein use of FIR as a piece of substantive evidence has been forbidden by the court. Three full-bench judgments [11][12][13] are extracted here–
The State of Bombay vs Rusy Mistry And Another
Top of PageThe first and earliest one of these is The State of Bombay vs Rusy Mistry And Another.
Supreme Court
Equivalent Citations: AIR 1960 SC 391;
The State of Bombay vs Rusy Mistry And Another
Date of Judgment: 24/09/1959
Decided by a full bench of the Supreme Court of India
Das, S. (J)
Gajendragdkar, P. (J)
Subba Rao, K. (J)
Held (in the 7th paragraph of the judgment):
"...The first information report is the information recorded under Section 154 of the Cr. P. C. It is an information given to a police officer relating to the commission of an offence. It is also an information given by an informant on which the investigation is commenced. It must be distinguished from information received after the commencement of the investigation which is covered by Sections 161 and 162 of the Cr. P. C. It is well-settled that the first information report is not substantive evidence, but can only be used to corroborate or contradict the evidence of the informant given in court or to impeach his credit. It follows that a Judge cannot place such a report before the jury as substantive evidence, but can only refer to that portion of it which had been used for one or other of the aforesaid purposes." (emphasis supplied)
Aghnoo Nagesia vs State of Bihar
Top of PageThe next judgment in this series is Aghnoo Nagesia vs State of Bihar.
Supreme Court
Equivalent Citations: 1966 AIR 119; 1966 SCR (1) 134;
Aghnoo Nagesia vs State of Bihar
Date of Judgment: 04/05/1965
Decided by a full bench of the Supreme Court of India
Bachawat, R.S. (J)
Subba Rao, K. (J)
Dayal, R. (J)
Held (in the 10th paragraph of the judgment):
"Section 154 of the Code of Criminal Procedure provides for the recording of the first information. The information report as such is not substantive evidence. It may be used to corroborate the informant under s. 157 of the Evidence Act or to contradict him under s. 145 of the Act, if the informant is called as (Note: There is what appears to be a typographical error at this point in the version on indiankanoon.org (from where the present extract is copied), and the word / words which is / are not typed correctly appears to be the single word "as". I have underlined the replacement made by me instead of reproducing the typographical error. - MU) a witness. If the first information is given by the accused himself, the fact of his giving the information is admissible against him as evidence of his conduct under s. 8 of the Evidence Art (correction: Act)." (emphasis supplied)
Apren Joseph alias Current Kunjukunju & others vs. The State of Kerala
Top of PageThe third judgment, which repeats the stand taken by the SC in the above 2 judgments is Apren Joseph alias Current Kunjukunju & others vs. The State of Kerala.
Supreme Court
Equivalent Citations: 1973 AIR 1; 1973 SCR (2) 16; 1973 SCC (3) 114;
Apren Joseph alias Current Kunjukunju & others vs. The State of Kerala
Date of Judgment: 01/09/1972
Decided by a full bench of the Supreme Court of India
Dua, I.D. (J)
Shelat, J.M. (J)
Khanna, H.R. (J)
Held (in the 10th paragraph of the judgment):
"Now first information report is a report relating to the commission. of an offence given to the police and recorded by it under s. 154, Cr. P.C. As observed by the Privy Council in H.E. v. Khwaja(1) the receipt and recording of information report by the police is not a condition precedent to the setting in motion of a criminal investigation. Nor does the statute provide that such information report can only be made by an eye witness. First information report under s. 154 is not even considered a substantive piece of evidence. It can only be used to corroborate or contradict the informant's evidence in court. But this information when recorded is the basis of the case set up by the informant. It is very useful if recorded before there is time and opportunity to embellish or before the informant's memory fades." (emphasis supplied)
References:
Top of Page11)The State of Bombay vs Rusy Mistry and Another on 24 September, 1959; Indiankanoon.org; Delhi; Undated; Retrieved on 10th May 2021
12)Aghnoo Nagesia vs State of Bihar on 4 May, 1965; Indiankanoon.org; Delhi; Undated; Retrieved on 10th May 2021
13)Apren Joseph alias Current Kunjukunju & others vs. The State of Kerala; Indiankanoon.org; Delhi; Undated; Retrieved on 10th May 2021