mehnatFull form of F.I.R.
Top of PageThe abbreviation F.I.R. means First Information Report. This is the term used to describe a police report in our country. The abbreviation has acquired a life of its own and has become a word of daily use now. Eff Ai Aar. FIR. This (daily use of this word) is especially true in the circles in which you are moving these days, which is to say amongst lawyers, police, and judges. The word "report" is commonly used as short for "F.I.R."
The FIR in 498a cases is not registered by the police immediately upon receipt of complaint. The opposite is true in 304b cases.
Procedure for registration of an F.I.R.
Top of PageThe procedure for registration of an FIR is simple in the simplest case. A complainant, who is usually the victim (or one of the victims) of a crime approaches the police with news of occurrence of a crime either within the area of jurisdiction of the said police station or outside its area of jurisdiction. The police is required by law to either take a complaint from him / her in writing OR to note down his verbal description of the crime which has taken place. If the offence which is described by the complainant (regardless of whether it is true or false) constitutes one or more than one cognizable crimes then the police is required to register an FIR. This is usually done after taking approval of the same from the SHO / police post incharge. At other times the procedure is longer but here we are talking about the simplest case.
Cognizable crimes are that category of crimes upon whose news the police is authorised to initiate criminal proceedings without the permission of a court of law AND duty-bound to initiate such proceedings without waiting for an order from a court of law. These crimes include most crimes which are punishable with 3 or more years imprisonment under the Indian Penal Code or any other law. CrPC Section 154 [1] [2] is the legal basis for compulsory registration of FIR upon receipt of complaint. It is reproduced hereunder—
S. 154 – Information in cognizable cases
(source: devgan.in)
1) Every information relating to the commission of a cognizable offence, if given orally to an officer in charge of a police station, shall be reduced to writing by him or under his direction, and be read over to the informant; and every such information, whether given in writing or reduced to writing as aforesaid, shall be signed by the person giving it, and the substance thereof shall be entered in a book to be kept by such officer in such form as the State Government may prescribe in this behalf.
Provided that if the information is given by the woman against whom an offence under section 326A, section 326B, section 354, section 354A, section 354B, section 354C, section 354D, section 376, [1]section 376A, section1 376AB, section 376B, section 376C, section 376D, section 376DA, section 376DB, section 376E or section 509 of the Indian Penal Code is alleged to have been committed or attempted, then such information shall be recorded, by a woman police officer or any woman officer;
Provided further that—
a) In the event that the person against whom an offence under section 354, section 354A, section 354B, section 354C, section 354D, section 376, [2]section 376A, section1 376AB, section 376B, section 376C, section 376D, section 376DA, section 376DB, section 376E or section 509 of the Indian Penal Code is alleged to have been committed or attempted, is temporarily or permanently mentally or physically disabled, then such information shall be recorded by a police officer, at the residence of the person seeking to report such offence or at a convenient place of such person’s choice, in the presence of an interpreter or a special educator, as the case may be;
b) The recording of such information shall be video graphed;
c) The police officer shall get the statement of the person recorded by a Judicial Magistrate under clause (a) of sub-section (5A) of section 164 as soon as possible.
2) A copy of the information as recorded under Sub-Section (1) shall be given forthwith, free of cost, to the informant.
3)Any person, aggrieved by a refusal on the part of an officer in charge of a police station to record the information referred to in Sub-Section (1) may send the substance of such information, in writing and by post, to the Superintendent of Police concerned who, if satisfied that such information discloses the commission of a cognizable offence, shall either investigate the case himself or direct an investigation to be made by any police officer subordinate to him, in the manner provided by this Code, and such officer shall have all the powers of an officer in charge of the police station in relation to that offence.
Footnotes to CrPC Section 154
(source: Ministry of Home Affairs, Government of India)
1) Certain words substituted by Section 11(i) of Criminal Law (Amendment) Act, 2018 (Act no. 22 of 2018) w.e.f. 11th August 2018
2) Certain words substituted by Section 11(ii) of Criminal Law (Amendment) Act, 2018 (Act no. 22 of 2018) w.e.f. 11th August 2018
The requirement to register an FIR immediately upon receive of any complaint which discloses the commission of a cognizable offence has also been explained –in detail‐ in a Constitution Bench judgment in what is known as the Lalita Kumari case [3].
Receipt of every complaint is recorded in 2 registers which are kept in every police station. One is the daily diary and the other is the register of complaints. There is also a third register called the register of FIRs. If an FIR is registered upon a complaint then this fact is recorded in 3 registers, being the daily diary, the register of complaints, and the register of FIRs.
The concerned police station is required by law to provide a copy of the FIR to the complainant (ref. CrPC Section154(1) above).
Does an F.I.R. always contain First Information?
Top of PageAn FIR –going by its name– should be based upon the first information (about the commission of a crime) received by the police. This does not always happen.
When FIR does not contain first information due to preliminary enquiry
Top of PageSometimes the police does not immediately register an FIR because it wants to make preliminary enquiries based upon the information received by it (not being a written complaint) from various sources. It then first carries out such preliminary enquiry and later writes a "first information" report in its own language. At some other times the police is required either by law or by procedure laid down by law to carry out such a preliminary enquiry before registering an FIR.
The version which is put down in writing after preliminary enquiry is thus a second or latter, and modified version of the information originally received by the police.
Crime against women cells have been established in every state to handle dowry cases and the job of these CAW cells is inter alia to carry out a preliminary enquiry upon receipt of dowry complaints.
When FIR does not contain first information due to inadvertent inaccuracies
Top of PageSometimes the complainant is illiterate or not sufficiently literate, and is not able to write down the details of the alleged crime. As a result, any first information which is received is in verbal form, and small differences occur between what the complainant says and what the police writes down.
Less serious (than first information) FIR due to corruption / political pressure
Top of PageAt other times the information (not being a written complaint) is modified while putting it down in black and white. An incorrect and watered down version of the complaint is recorded. This usually happens due to bribery / corruption, or due to misuse of influence by various centres of power, or because of political pressure.
KPS Gill managed to convince the Punjab and Haryana High Court in a quashing petition u/s 482 CrPC that no offence was made out in the clear as day molestation complaint filed against him by Rupan Deol Bajaj. The problem for Gill was that the whole world held an opinion contrary to the Punjab and Haryana HC, and that the Supreme Court –where Mrs. Bajaj and her husband filed two separate SLPs [4] against the high court judgment– agreed with the whole world instead of agreeing with the Punjab and Haryana High Court.
More serious (than facts / first information) FIR due to media pressure / corruption / political pressure
Top of PageCorruption in various forms and political pressure often lead to the opposite also,i.e. F.I.Rs in which details are modified to make them more severe than what actually happened. In such cases also the F.I.R. is incorrect, but modification of the original complaint is NOT the reason for its being incorrect. Rather, the original written complaint itself is either incorrect or legally unsustainable.
The Nisha Sharma / Munish Dalal dowry case is a prime example of exaggeration due to media pressure, wherein an FIR u/s 498A of IPC was registered even though the complainant never completed solemnisation of the proposed wedding, and hence was not the wife of the accused. Note that only the wife or a family member of the wife of any man is permitted to raise a complaint u/s 498A.
Other / miscellaneous causes of non-inclusion of first information
Top of PageIt might also happen that the victim of a crime is put out of action, or there is no complainant due to the death of all the victims of a particular crime. In such cases the first information received by the police is invariably from other sources, and often such sources are unwilling to put down their complaint in writing. The police is duty bound to register an FIR in a number of types of crime, and they are forced in such situations to write the report themselves.
It may even happen that the person who reports a crime has no locus standi which may render him eligible to be the complainant. In such cases a situation may arise due to various factors which may force the police to record the crime in their own language.
Delays in FIRs and delays because of delayed FIRs
Top of PageThe subject of delays in criminal proceedings is interesting not only for litigants and lawyers but for the whole country. Here some aspects of such delays are explained in brief.
Is it possible that an FIR is delayed in spite of timely complaint?
Top of PageThere is a common saying that anything is possible in the great country of India. Delay of FIR in spite of timely complaint is a very small thing, and history has witnessed that such small things are very common in here.
There can be no greater example of this sorry fact than the late registration of FIRs after the mass murder of Sikhs in Delhi and a few other cities in the days after Indira Gandhi's assassination. The globally known and published offences took place in October and November 1984 during Rajiv Gandhi's first few days as PM, but FIRs were registered in dozens of cases even as late as 1990, 1991, 1992, and 1993, [5] after he had passed away in similarly tragic circumstances. If this was not bad enough, all the FIRs related to murders of Sikhs in Kanpur the days after and including 31st October 1984 were destroyed by Uttar Pradesh Police [6] staff 'working' in Kanpur.
Is police legally bound to accept late complaints? (Statute of Limitations (criminal law))
Top of PageThe statute of limitations is that law in any country which declares the number of years which may be allowed to expire before admitting an FIR is rendered legally impossible. In India, section 468 of CrPC is the law in this regard, insofar as criminal law is concerned [7] [8]. According to this section, the limitation period for any offence which is punishable by a fine only is six months, that for any offence which is punishable by a prison term up to one year is one year, and that for any offence which is punishable by a prison term from one to three years is three years.
Section 468 – Bar to taking cognizance after lapse of the period of limitation
(source: devgan.in)
(1) Except as otherwise provided elsewhere in this Code, no Court, shall take cognizance of an offence of the category specified in Sub-Section (2), after the expiry of the period of limitation.
(2) The period of limitation shall be–
(a) Six months, if the offence is punishable with fine only;
(b) One year, if the offence is punishable with imprisonment for a term not exceeding one year;
(c) Three years, if the offence is punishable with imprisonment for a term exceeding one year but not exceeding three years.
(3) [1]For the purposes of this section, the period of limitation, in relation to offences which may be tried together, shall be determined with reference to the offence which is punishable with the more severe punishment or, as the case may be, the most severe punishment.
Footnote to CrPC Section 468
(source: Indiankanoon.org)
1) 1. Provisions of this Chapter shall not apply to certain economic offences, see the Economic Offences (Inapplicability of Limitation) Act, 1974 (12 of 1974 ), s. 2 end Sch.
Since section 498a is punishable by a maximum of 3 years, any complaint relating to dowry harassment or dowry cruelty must be reported within three years of the last claimed incident. The same is true of section 406, which relates to criminal breach of trust. Section 34 is punishable by one year in prison in the worst case, so if any complaint under sections 498a/406/34 is made more than one year after the reported offence, then section 34 must be not included in the FIR, lest it be quashed partly or in toto.
Are delayed F.I.Rs taken seriously by courts? (Warrant cases, Serious crimes, Heinous crimes)
Top of PageIn many crimes a delayed FIR is not taken seriously by the courts. In many other crimes an FIR is accepted as a weighty document regardless of any delay.
In serious crimes (crimes which may be punished by 7 years in prison) delays are condoned more easily than in warrant cases (cases relating to crimes which may be punished by 2 or more years in prison). In heinous crimes (crimes which may be punished by life in prison or death) any delay in registering an FIR is immaterial.
Insofar as dowry cases are concerned, courts tend to take delayed complaints under IPC section 498a, IPC section 406, and IPC section 34 with a pinch of salt. An FIR is compulsory upon complaint –with a small caveat in the case of 498a– since all these sections pertain to cognisable crimes. In cases involving Section 498a of the CrPC the caveat established by law is that there is a CAW cell procedure which the complainant and the prime accused have to undergo before a decision is taken about forwarding the complaint to the relevant police station.
Desirable ingredients of an FIR
Top of PageMadabhushi Sridhar has done a fairly comprehensive analysis of FIRs in his work FIR, Arrest and Bail (Sridhar, M.; FIR, Arrest and Bail; Asia Book House; Hyderabad; 2010) [9]. He quotes earlier experts as having declared that an FIR needs to have eleven essential Ws in it. It is to be noted however that any such list of ingredients is as a matter of fact only a desirable list of ingredients This is because no FIR is legally inadmissible, regardless of whether or not it contains any or all so-claimed essentials. The "essential Ws" are listed in Sridhar's book as paraphrased below—
1) What information has been conveyed by the complainant / informant?
2) In What capacity has this information been conveyed?
3) Who committed the crime?
4) Against Whom was the crime committed?
5) When was the crime committed?
6) Where was the crime committed?
7) Why was the crime committed? That is to ask, What was the motive?
8) In Which way was the crime carried out / What was the modus operandi?
9) Are there any Witnesses? Who are they?
10) What was taken away by the accused? Or What was the damage done by the accused?
11) What traces were left by the accused?
It is compulsory for the complainant to sign the FIR
Top of PageAccording to the CrPC, any person who provides information to the police about a crime is obliged to sign the FIR (ref. CrPC Section154(1) above). He or she is liable to be imprisoned for up to 3 months in case of a refusal to do so. This provision is almost never enforced. At least this writer has never heard about such a thing happening. Another interesting thing is that the CrPC does not define what an FIR is anywhere through its length. Even the phrase "first information report" does not occur anywhere in the code (i.e. in the CrPC).
Hearsay as a basis for an FIR
Top of PageDifferent writers have different views about hearsay becoming a basis for an FIR. Most writers say that if somebody provides vague or unreliable information, it cannot be considered to be an FIR even if it is in written form. Janak Raj Jai however, holds that hearsay is a perfect valid basis for an FIR. (Jai, J.R., Bail Law and Procedures, Universal Law Publishing Company, Delhi, 2012) [10]
Medico Legal Certificate
Top of PageIf somebody provides information about an injury to a person, then the SHO is duty bound to record the same in the daily diary and to reach the hospital urgently to verify the truth of the claim made by the informant. Another essential purpose of the hospital visit is to ensure timely carrying out of medico-legal formalities. The MLC or the medico-legal certificate is an important piece of proof in any FIR. A wife's case becomes much stronger in dowry cases if she has such a document in her possession. However, there are a number of cases every week in which deception by the complainant is exposed by criminal defence lawyers in spite of the existence of MLCs. This sometimes leads to filing of charges against the lying complainant.
Can an FIR be used as evidence?
Top of PageAnother interesting theme explored by Madabhushi Sridhar in his book (see above) 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 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 498a wife, her family, and her sponsors.
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." (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)
Circumstances under which (some portion of) an FIR becomes substantive evidence
Top of PageAn FIR (or part of it) becomes substantive evidence if it is admitted as substantive evidence by the concerned court. This happens in 3 common circumstances and in a few additional circumstances, all of which can be seen in Section 32 of the Indian Evidence Act. As far as the 3 common circumstances are concerned, you can see the 1st circumstance here, the 2nd circumstance here, and the 3rd circumstance here). These 3 common circumstances are all contemplated in Section 32(1) of the Indian Evidence Act, and all of them relate to death.
Note that certain statements made by dead persons can be admitted under Section 8 and / or Section 6 of the Indian Evidence Act also (apart from under Section 32(1) of the Indian Evidence Act) as can be seen in Damodarprasad Chandrikaprasad for Section 8 (see below) and Rattan Singh for Section 6 (see below).
Coming to the rest of Section 32 of the Evidence Act, note that a full bench of the Supreme Court has declared in Kans Raj (see below) that any statement admitted under any sub-section of Section 32 (and not just under Section 32(1)) of the Indian Evidence Act constitutes substantive evidence, after it is proved by the person or the agency relying upon such statement that such statement was in fact made by the concerned person. If this position is accepted as a clear and unambiguous statement then it becomes necessary to say that if certain types of statements of not only dead persons but of those persons who cannot be found and of those persons whose attendance is unreasonably difficult to procure are contained in an FIR, then the said FIR becomes substantive evidence.
The bare text of Section 32(1) [20] of the Evidence Act is as follows–
Indian Evidence Act Section 32(1) –
(source: devgan.in)
Statements, written or verbal, of relevant facts made by a person who is dead, or who cannot be found, or who has become incapable of giving evidence, or whose attendance cannot be procured, without an amount of delay or expense which under the circumstances of the case appears to the Court unreasonable, are themselves relevant facts in the following cases–
(1) When it relates to cause of death: When the statement is made by a person as to the cause of his death, or as to any of the circumstances of the transaction which resulted in his death, in cases in which the cause of that person’s death comes into question.
Such statements are relevant whether the person who made them was or was not, at the time when they were made, under expectation of death, and whatever may be the nature of the proceeding in which the cause of his death comes into question.
Detailed explanation of the above indicated 3 commonly seen circumstances is given hereunder—
When an F.I.R. contains a dying declaration
Top of PageIf a dying declaration is a part of an FIR then the FIR becomes substantive evidence.
(It is more reasonable to say that that part of the FIR becomes substantive evidence which consists of the said dying declaration, as also that part which is directly derived from the said dying declaration. It may further be conjectured here that the whole of the FIR in such cases is also eligible to be treated as substantive evidence if the judge decides to do so keeping in view the given matrix of facts, but conjectures are conjectures.)
It is to be noted that every dying declaration is admissible as evidence under section 32(1) of the Indian Evidence Act, but only after it is established that such declaration had actually been made by the person who died.
Further note that a dying declaration is admissible only in cases where the cause of death of the concerned person comes into question, albeit the nature of proceedings where it comes into question is immaterial. Another way of stating this is that dying declarations are admissible in all kinds of legal proceedings and not just in murder / suicide related proceedings, provided that the cause of the dead person's death comes into question within the said proceedings.
When an FIR contains a declaration about probable cause of death of a dead person
Top of PageIf a person makes a statement about a probable cause of his death and later dies AND such statement becomes part of an FIR then that portion of the FIR which consists of such statement plus that part which is directly derived from such statement becomes substantive evidence.
When an FIR contains a declaration about some circumstance related to death of a dead person
Top of PageIf a person makes a statement about some circumstance, and later it turns out that the circumstance was related to any transaction which led to his death then that portion of the FIR which consists of such statement plus that part which is directly derived from such statement becomes substantive evidence. The said circumstance may have occurred long before the death of the concerned person; this does not affect admissibility of the said statement.
Supreme Court decisions wherein approval of use of FIR as evidence has occurred
Top of PageFive judgments of the Supreme Court are cited here to illustrate the range of circumstances whereunder an FIR can be treated as evidence. [21] [22] [23] [24] [25]
Damodarprasad Chandrikaprasad & others vs State of Maharashtra
Top of PageDamodarprasad Chandrikaprasad & others vs State of Maharashtra was decided by the Supreme Court in 1971.
Supreme Court
Equivalent Citations: 1972 AIR 622; 1972 SCR (2) 622;
Damodarprasad Chandrikaprasad & others vs State of Maharashtra
Date of Judgment: 29/11/1971
Decided by a single judge of the Supreme Court of India
Ray, A.N. (J)
Held (in the 8th paragraph of the judgment):
"...In certain cases, the first information report can be used under section 32(1) of the Evidence Act or under section 8 of the Evidence Act as to the cause of the informant's death or as part of the informer's conduct. ..."
Tehal Singh and others vs State of Punjab
Top of PageThe main legal issue decided in Tehal Singh and others vs State of Punjab was whether it is necessary for a statement made by a deceased person to have been made in anticipation of death in order for it to be treated as substantive evidence.
Supreme Court
Equivalent Citations: AIR 1979 SC 1347; 1979 CriLJ 1031; 1980 Supp (1) SCC 400;
Tehal Singh and others vs State of Punjab
Date of Judgment: 27/10/1978
Decided by a division bench of the Supreme Court of India
Singh, J. (J)
Reddy, O.C. (J)
Held (in the 4th paragraph of the judgment):
"...We do not also see any force in the suggestion of Dr. Chitaley that the statement of Harmel Singh was not made in expectation of death and was, therefore, not entitled to weight. Apart from the fact that Section 32 of the Evidence Act does not require that a statement should be made in expectation of death, it is clear from the evidence that the condition of Harmel Singh was serious at that time. ..." (emphasis supplied)
Rattan Singh vs The State of Himachal Pradesh
Top of PageSupreme Court
Equivalent Citations: (1997) 4 SCC 161;
Rattan Singh vs The State of Himachal Pradesh
Date of Judgment: 11/12/1996
Decided by a division bench of the Supreme Court of India
Anand, A.S. (J)
Thomas, K.T. (J)
Held (in the 15th paragraph of the judgment):
"Even apart from section 32(1) of the Evidence Act, the aforesaid statement of Kanta Devi (i.e. the deceased person being discussed - MU) can be admitted under section 6 of the Evidence Act on account of its proximity of time to the act of murder. ..." (emphasis supplied)
Further held (in the 16th paragraph of the judgment):
"In either case, whether it is admissible under section 32(1) or under section 6 of the Evidence Act, it is substantive evidence which can be acted upon with or without corroboration in finding guilt of the accused."
George & others vs State of Kerala & Another
Top of PageSupreme Court
Equivalent Citations: [1998] 4 SCC 605;
George & others vs State of Kerala & Another
Date of Judgment: 18/03/1998
Decided by a division bench of the Supreme Court of India
Mukherjee, M.K. (J)
Quadri, S.S.M. (J)
Held (in the 30th paragraph of the judgment):
"...Before proceeding further we must confess that we have not able to fathom how the trial Court could rely upon the contents of Ext. P.1 (i.e. exhibit number 1 used by the prosecution, which in this case was the concerned F.I.R. – MU), lodged by P.W.1, and that too for the purpose of discarding the evidence of P.Ws.3 and 4. P.W.1 turned hostile and testified that he did not make any statement before the police but signed on the dotted lines. It is trite that an F.I.R. is not substantive evidence (unless of course it is admitted under Section 32(1) of the Evidence Act) and can be used to corroborate or contradict the maker thereof; and therefore, the question of corroborating P.W.1 by his purported statements, as contained in Ext. P.1 could not arise. In spite thereof the trial Court observed `.......the first informant statement is further supported by the evidence of P.W.1' and used the statements contained therein (Ext.P.1) as substantive evidence to discredit P.Ws.3 and 4. It must, therefore, be said that the approach of the trial Court in dealing with the F.I.R. was legally impermissible. ..." (emphasis supplied)
Kans Raj vs State of Punjab & others
Top of PageIn Kans Raj vs State of Punjab & others, the Supreme Court held that the whole of Section 32 (and not just Section 32(1)) of the Indian Evidence Act is an exception to the rule of exclusion of hearsay.
Nitpickers might say that the implications of this finding / declaration upon whether every FIR containing one or more statements under the said section is to be treated as being admissible as substantive evidence were not expounded in detail by the full bench of the SC which delivered the verdict in this case. This does not mean that this judgment is not binding in this respect, quite the opposite in fact.
Supreme Court
Equivalent Citations: AIR 2000 SC 2324(1); (2000) 5 SCC 207;
Kans Raj vs State of Punjab & others
Date of Judgment: 26/04/2000
Decided by a full bench of the Supreme Court of India
Pattanaik, G.B. (J)
Sethi, R.P. (J)
Patil, S.V. (J)
Held (in the 11th paragraph of the judgment):
"Section 32 of the Evidence Act is admittedly an exception to the general rule of exclusion to the hearsay evidence and the statements of a person, written or verbal, of relevant facts, after his death are admissible in evidence if they refer to the cause of his death or to any circumstances of the transaction which resulted in his death. ..." (emphasis supplied)
Further held (also in the 11th paragraph of the judgment):
"...To attract the provisions of Section 32, for the purposes of admissibility of the statement of a deceased the prosecution is required to prove that the statement was made by a person who is dead or who cannot be found or whose attendance cannot be procured without an amount of delay or expense or he is incapable of giving evidence and that such statement had been made under any of the circumstances specified in sub-sections (1) to (8) of Section 32 of the Act. ..."
Further held (also in the 11th paragraph of the judgment):
"...To make such statement as substantive evidence, the person or the agency relying upon it is under a legal obligation to prove the making of such statement as a fact. If it is in writing, the scribe must be produced in the Court and if it is verbal, it should be proved by examining the person who heard the deceased making the statement. ..."
What are "material facts" in an FIR?
Top of PageAnother important thing is that all material facts and circumstances must be recorded in an FIR. In legal language, material facts and those facts –and material information is that information– which can change the course of a case depending upon their / its truthfulness or lack of truthfulness.
Subsequent complaints / Second Information Report (sic)
Top of PageIf any subsequent claims in the form of complaints are made by the complainant, the police is not bound to accept them, or to take them seriously. Such claims are a fairly common occurrence in dowry cases, since disgruntled wives feel the need to embellish, embroider, and exaggerate their original version as soon as they realise that the government machinery is extremely receptive to their lies. This can and does go against them eventually, because a large number of discrepancies arise between the various versions that keep coming up during the legal process. Remember that in law there is no concept of S.I.R. or Second Information Report, although this ("Sir") is the preferred form of address used by the police when they talk to your 'father-in-law'.
An FIR is not required to be the encyclopaedia of a crime
Top of PageAn FIR cannot be expected to be an 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 (see above) and also for "Second Information Reports" (this subject is also covered above). Simultaneously it is true as mentioned above 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 statements 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)
Certain minimum facts are necessary in an F.I.R.
Top of PageAlthough an F.I.R. is not required to be the encyclopaedia of a crime, still it is necessary that a necessary minimum quantum of facts is mentioned therein. This position has been canvassed by the Supreme Court also in a few decisions (see below).
Supreme Court judgments wherein it is declared that certain minimum facts are necessary in an F.I.R.
Top of PageBare outlines of two decisions of the Supreme Court wherein it has been noted that certain minimum facts are necessary in an FIR are adumbrated here [18] [19].
State of Andhra Pradesh vs Golconda Linga Swamy
Top of PageThe relevant portion of State of Andhra Pradesh vs Golconda Linga Swamy reads as below.
Supreme Court
Equivalent Citations: (2004) 6 SCC 522;
State of Andhra Pradesh vs Golconda Linga Swamy
Date of Judgment: 27/07/2004
Decided by a division bench of the Supreme Court of India
Variava, S.N. (J)
Pasayat, A. (J)
Held (in the 11th paragraph of the judgment):
"...Though the FIR is not intended to be an encyclopedia of the background scenario, yet even skeletal features must disclose the commission of an offence. The position is not so in these cases. Therefore, the High Court's interference does not suffer from any legal infirmity, though the reasonings indicated by the High Court do not have our approval."
Arulvelu & Another vs State represented By Public Prosecutor and Another
Top of PageDalveer Bhandari wrote the judgment in Arulvelu & Another vs State represented By Public Prosecutor and Another. In addition to what is extracted below it was stated that when two views are possible, the view favouring the accused merits acceptance.
Supreme Court
Equivalent Citations: (2009) 10 SCC 206;
Arulvelu & Another vs State represented By Public Prosecutor and Another
Date of Judgment: 07/10/2009
Decided by a division bench of the Supreme Court of India
Bhandari, D. (J)
Chauhan, B.S. (J)
Held (in the 16th paragraph of the judgment):
"The High Court observed that the FIR cannot be an encyclopedia to contain all the details of history of the case. This approach of the High Court does not seem to be correct. The FIR should at least mention a broad story of the prosecution and not mentioning of material and vital facts may affect the credibility of the FIR."
Further Reading
Top of PageYou may also wish to read Typical FIR u/s 498a/406/34 (Part 1) and/or Typical FIR u/s 498a/406/34 (Part 2).
One or both of the following articles may also be of interest to you–
Conditions at the Women's Police Station and Interrogation and Investigation by the Police in Dowry Cases.
References:
Top of Page1) CrPC Section 154 - Information in cognizable cases | Devgan.in; devgan.in; Delhi; Undated; Retrieved on 08th May 2021
2) Section 154 in The Code Of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Indiankanoon.org; Delhi; Undated; Retrieved on 08th May 2021
3) Lalita Kumari vs. Govt. of Uttar Pradesh & Others on 12 November, 2013; Indiankanoon.org; Delhi; Undated; Retrieved on 08th May 2021
4) Mrs. Rupan Deol Bajaj & Another vs Kanwar Pal Singh Gill & Another on 12 October, 1995; Indiankanoon.org; Delhi; Undated; Retrieved on 08th May 2021
5) Gyanesh, K.; Notice by S.I.T. for 1984 riots; Ministry of Home Affairs; New Delhi; 23rd February, 2017; Retrieved on 08th May 2021
6) Nath, D.; RTI query reveals cops destroyed FIRs of 1984 riots; The Hindu; Chennai; 13th April, 2015; Retrieved on 08th May 2021
7) Section 468 in The Code Of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Indiankanoon.org; Delhi; Undated; Retrieved on 09th May 2021
8) CrPC Section 468 - Bar to taking cognizance after lapse of the period of limitation | Devgan.in; devgan.in; Delhi; Undated; Retrieved on 08th May 2021
9) Sridhar, M.; FIR, Arrest and Bail; Asia Book House; Hyderabad; 2020
10) Jai, J.R.; Bail Law and Procedures; Universal Law Publishing Company; Delhi; 2016
11) 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
14) 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
18) State of Andhra Pradesh vs Golconda Linga Swamy And Another on 27 July, 2004; Indiankanoon.org; Delhi; Undated; Retrieved on 15th May 2021
19) Arulvelu & Another vs State Represented By Public Prosecutor & Another on 7 October, 2009; Indiankanoon.org; Delhi; Undated; Retrieved on 15th May 2021
20) Section 32 of Indian Evidence Act– Cases in which statement of relevant fact by person who is dead or cannot be found, etc., is relevant ; devgan.in; Delhi; Undated; Retrieved on 29th May 2021
21) Damodarprasad Chandrikaprasad & others vs State of Maharashtra on 29 November, 1971; Indiankanoon.org; Delhi; Undated; Retrieved on 30th May 2021
22) Tehal Singh and others vs State of Punjab on 27 October, 1978; Indiankanoon.org; Delhi; Undated; Retrieved on 30th May 2021
23) Rattan Singh vs The State of Himachal Pradesh on 11 December, 1996; Indiankanoon.org; Delhi; Undated; Retrieved on 30th May 2021
24) George & others vs State of Kerala & Another on 18 March, 1998; Indiankanoon.org; Delhi; Undated; Retrieved on 30th May 2021
25) Kans Raj vs State of Punjab & others on 26 April, 2000; Indiankanoon.org; Delhi; Undated; Retrieved on 30th May 2021