mehnatAn FIR is not required to be the encyclopaedia of a crime
Top of PageAn FIR cannot be expected to be an / the encyclopaedia of a crime. This stand has been supported by the Supreme Court also (see below). This stand of the Supreme Court seems to create scope for insertion of new material facts in criminal cases after the F.I.R. stage and also for "Second Information Reports" (this subject is also covered in this article). Simultaneously it is true as mentioned in this article that all material facts and circumstances must be recorded in an FIR, because introduction of new material facts post F.I.R. amounts to creation of a conflicting version. These two stances appear to be mutually contradictory, and this writer has a feeling that such a twist is likely to occur in your dowry case also. It is for the court in your case to adjudicate the resultant apparent contradiction.
Supreme Court decisions wherein it is declared that an F.I.R. is not required to be the an encyclopedia of a crime
Top of PageThere are a number of judgments of the Supreme Court wherein it has been held that an FIR is not required to be the encyclopaedia of a crime. Relevant portions of a few such judgments [14][15][16][17] are reproduced here–
Ashabai Machindra Adhagale vs State of Maharashtra & Others
Top of PageThe case titled Ashabai Machindra Adhagale vs State of Maharashtra & Others was adjudicated by a full bench of the Supreme Court consisting of Arijit Pasayat, Mukundkam Sharma, and H.L. Dattu. It is a very important judgment because it was passed by a full bench.
Supreme Court
Equivalent Citations: (2009) 3 SCC 789;
Ashabai Machindra Adhagale vs State of Maharashtra
Date of Judgment: 12/02/2009
Decided by a full bench of the Supreme Court of India
Pasayat, A. (J)
Sharma, M. (J)
Dattu, H.L. (J)
Held (in the 14th paragraph of the judgment):
"It needs no reiteration that the FIR is not expected to be an encyclopedia. As rightly contended by learned counsel for the appellant whether the accused belongs to scheduled caste or scheduled tribe can be gone into when the matter is being investigated."
Surjit Singh alias Gurmit Singh vs State of Punjab
Top of PageSurjit Singh alias Gurmit Singh vs State of Punjab is another judgment of the Supreme Court which contains the said formulation.
Supreme Court
Equivalent Citations: 1992 AIR 1389; 1992 SCR (2) 786;
Surjit Singh alias Gurmit Singh vs State of Punjab
Date of Judgment: 28/04/1992
Decided by a division bench of the Supreme Court of India
Punchhi, M.M. (J)
Jeevan Reddy, B.P. (J)
Held (in the 9th paragraph of the judgment):
"...In this situation the aforesaid misdescription / omissions in the FIR about the number of shots fired and the absence of Taljit Singh's injuries or the appellant being not described as a military man become of lesser importance. First Information Report is not an encyclopedia of the entire case and is even not a substantive piece of evidence. It has value, no doubt, but only for the purpose of corroborating or contradicting the maker. Here the maker was a young woman who had lost her husband before her very eyes. The omission or misdescription of these details in the FIR which was recorded most promptly, within three hours of the occurrence, would not tell on the prosecution case or the statements of the eye- witnesses with regard to the participation of the appellant in the crime. ..."
Manoj @ Bhau & Ors vs State of Maharashtra
Top of PageManoj @* Bhau & Ors vs State of Maharashtra concerns a criminal appeal in a murder case, with a slight twist. The twist being that it was the state which was making this appeal. The judgment delivered mixed results to all parties, insofar as it was only partly allowed.
(note *) @ = alias
Supreme Court
Equivalent Citations: AIR 1999 SC 1620;
Manoj @ Bhau & Ors vs State of Maharashtra
Date of Judgment: 08/04/1999
Decided by a division bench of the Supreme Court of India
Pattanaik, G.B. (J)
Shah, M.B. (J)
Held (in the 4th paragraph of the judgment):
"...In course of the argument Mr. Lalit, learned senior counsel had urged that the FIR is rather sketchy and vivid account of the incident has not been stated therein. But it is too well settled that the First Information Report need not be an encyclopedia of the evidence and what is required to be stated is the basic prosecution case. Judged from that stand point no grievance can be made in respect of the First Information Report that was given by PW1."
Superintendent Of Police, C.B.I. and Others vs. Tapan Kumar Singh
Top of PageA detailed exposition of the concept under discussion in the present section is provided in the 24th paragraph of Superintendent Of Police, C.B.I. and Others vs. Tapan Kumar Singh.
Supreme Court
Equivalent Citations: (2003) 6 SCC 175; 2003 Cri LJ 2322;
Superintendent Of Police, C.B.I. and Others vs. Tapan Kumar Singh
Date of Judgment: 10/04/2003
Decided by a division bench of the Supreme Court of India
Hegde, N.S. (J)
Singh, B.P. (J)
Held (in the 24th paragraph of the judgment):
"It is well settled that a First Information Report is not an encyclopedia, which must disclose all facts and details relating to the offence reported." (emphasis supplied)
Further held (also in the 24th paragraph of the judgment):
"At this stage it is enough if the police officer on the basis of the information given suspects the commission of a cognizable offence, and not that he must be convinced or satisfied that a cognizable offence has been committed. If he has reasons to suspect, on the basis of information received, that a cognizable offence may have been committed, he is bound to record the information and conduct an investigation."
Further held (also in the 24th paragraph of the judgment):
"The true test is whether the information furnished provides a reason to suspect the commission of an offence, which the concerned police officer is empowered under Section 156 of the Code to investigate. If it does, he has no option but to record the information and proceed to investigate the case either himself or depute any other competent officer to conduct the investigation." (emphasis supplied)
References:
Top of Page14)Ashabai Machindra Adhagale vs State of Maharashtra & Others on 12 February, 2009; Indiankanoon.org; Delhi; Undated; Retrieved on 13th May 2021
15)Surjit Singh alias Gurmit Singh vs State of Punjab on 28 April, 1992; Indiankanoon.org; Delhi; Undated; Retrieved on 13th May 2021
16)Manoj @ Bhau & Others vs State of Maharashtra on 8 April, 1999; Indiankanoon.org; Delhi; Undated; Retrieved on 15th May 2021
17)Superintendent Of Police, C.B.I. and Others vs Tapan Kumar Singh on 10 April, 2003; Indiankanoon.org; Delhi; Undated; Retrieved on 15th May 2021