Vous êtes sur la page 1sur 14

1

F. I. R
( FIRST INFORMATION REPORT )
By
Y. SRINIVASA RAO
M.A (English)., B.Ed., B.L., (LL.M),
I ADDL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE, BHIMAVARAM

INTRODUCTION:
The basic purpose of filing FIR is to set the criminal law into motion and
not to state all the minute details therein1. The information under section 154 of
Cr.P.C is generally known a s F.I.R though 'first is not used in the code. F.I.R is not
the be all and end all of every criminal case and is not sunstantive evidence . It can be
used only for limited purposes, like corroborating the maker thereof or as one of resgestae or for being tendered in a proper case u/sec 32 (1) of Evidence Act or part of
informant's conduct u/sec 8 of Evidence Act. (AIR 1963 AP 252).
"154. Information in cognizable cases. (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.
(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
1

State of U.P Vs Krishna Mater & Ors, 2010 (2) L.S 42 (SC)

2
relation to that offence.''

Sub-section (1) of Section 154 of Cr.P.C. contains four mandates to an


officer in-charge of a police station. The first enjoins that every information relating
to commission of a cognizable offence if given orally shall be reduced to writing and
the second directs that it be read over to the informant; the third requires that every
such information whether given in writing or reduced to writing shall be signed by
the informant and the fourth is that the substance of such information shall be entered
in the station house diary.2
F.I.R-- Silent Features

1. Information of cognizable offence

Evidentiary value of F.I.R:

The value of F.I.R depends on the

can be given by any person to

circumstances of each case, nature of the

police having jurisdiction

crime, information and opportunity of


witnessing the offence (AIR 1973 SC

2. Despite F.I.R is outside the

476)

mischief of section 162 of Cr.P.C,


still it is not substantive piece of

F.I.R can be used:

evidence; that is, it cannot vouch


safe the truth of its contents. It
has to be duly proved as any other
fact by evidence.

1. F. I. R. is not a substantive piece


of evidence. It can be used either
for corroboration under Section
157, or for contradiction under

3. Police officer shall reduce such


information in writing
2 T.T.ANTONY Vs. STATE OF KERALA & ORS.

Section 145 of the Evidence Act,


of the maker of the statement.

3
4. Informant's signature must be

(State Of Orissa vs Chakradhar

obtained

Behera And Ors, AIR 1964 Ori


262,)

5. the contents of such information


should be read over to Informant

2. It is a well settled law that the


F.I.R. by itself cannot be used as

6. such information must be entered


in record by the police officer

and it can only be used as a

7. Police officer shall give a copy of


such information to the informant
forthwith
8. Original F.I.R must be sent to the
Magistrate forthwith

register F.I.R, the aggrieved


person can send such information
to the Superindent of Police by

thereof. [Sajji Kumar S/O Pappu


Kumar vs State Of Goa ]
3. In some cases, F.I.R can be used
as Dying Declaration.(See
Evidence Act)
4. If F.I.R is given by accused, it
cannot be used either for
corroboration or contradiction in

post.

case it is affected by section 25 of

If F.I.R is made immediately


after

contradiction or corroboration

Relevant section 32 (1) of Indian

9. Despite a police officer refuses to

10.

a substantive piece of evidence

the

occurrence

of

an

incident, when the memory of the


person giving it is fresh in his
mind about the occurrence, the
sanctity of such F.I.R will be

Indian Evidence Act)


5. F.I.R can be used to prove
motive.
6. F.I.R can be used to prove
previous conduct of accused

increased. That too, F.I.R must


not

be

made

investigation.

during

the

7. F.I.R can be used to show


subsequent conduct of accused
8. F.I.R can be used for crossexamination of informant who
gave such information.
9. F.I.R got recorded by the police
has been taken as dying
declaration by the honorable
Supreme Court, when the person
did not survive to get his dying

4
declaration recorded [AIR 1976
2199 (SC)].
10. Act of investigation and filing
charge sheet are separate. (1978
Crl.L.J 63).
11. Whether investigation
commenced or not is a question
of fact. (AIR 1970 SC 1566)
12. F.I.R recorded bu investigation
officer as narrated by eye
witnesses, court should not start
with a presumption that it was
false or fabricated. ( 1985 SCC
(Cr) 464).
13. F.I.R recorded in course of
investigation of cognizable
offence -- Inadmissible. ( 1986
Crl .L.J 1620 ; AIR 1957 SC 366;
AIR 1966 SC 119).
14. F.I.R qualshed due to inordinate
delay in investigation not to be
interfered with. (1990 Crl.L.J
1306).
15. Person lodging F.I.R entitled to
hearing , when on the basis of
Police report, Magistrate prefers
to drop proceedings instead of
taking cognizance of offence.
(1985 SCC (Cr.) 267.

'' The Hon'ble Supreme Court further in State of Karnataka vs. Moin Patel and
others stated vis-a-vis the issue of delay in despatch of FIR as below: "The matter
can be viewed from another angle also. It has already been found by us that the
prosecution case is that the FIR was promptly lodged at or about 1.30 AM and

5
that the investigation started on the basis thereof is wholly reliable and
acceptable. Judged in the context of the above facts the mere delay in despatch of
the FIR - and for that matter in receipt thereof by the Magistrate - would not make
the prosecution case suspect for as has been pointed out by a three Judge Bench
of this Court in Pala Singh V. State of Punjab, , the relevant provision contained
in Section 157 Cr.P.C. regarding forthwith dispatch of the report (FIR) is really
designed to keep the Magistrate informed of the investigation of a cognizable
offence so as to be able to control the investigation and if necessary to give proper
direction under section 159 Cr.P.C. and therefore if in a given case it is found that
FIR was recorded without delay and the investigation started on that FIR then
however,improper or objectionable the delayed receipt of the report by the
Magistrate concerned, it cannot by itself justify the conclusion that the
investigation was tainted and the prosecution unsupportable". ''... In this view of
the matter, simply because the FIR in this case was received in the court of the
Chief Judicial Magistrate with delay it cannot be said that the FIR in this case is
not genuine or that it is tainted or that the prosecution case should be viewed with
suspicion.

Further, it is to be seen that '' Sending F.I.R to Magistrate 'forthwith' is really


desinged to keep the Magistrate informed of the investigation and to control the
same or give direction u/sec 159. 3''

Effect of belated F.I.R. when fatal.:''

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. Undue or
unreasonable delay in lodging the F.I.R., therefore, inevitably gives rise to
suspicion which puts the court on guard to look for the possible motive and the
explanation for the delay and consider its effect on the trustworthiness or
otherwise of the prosecution version. In our opinion, no duration of time in the
abstract can be fixed as reasonably for giving information of a crime to the police,
the question of reasonable time being a matter for determination by the court in
3 AIR 1972 SC 679

6
each case. Mere delay in lodging the first information report with the police is,
therefore, not necessarily, as a matter of law, fatal to the prosecution. The effect
of delay in doing so in the light of the plausi- bility of the explanation for the
coming for such delay accordingly must fall for consideration on all the facts and
circumstances of a given case.4''

'' The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Thulia Kali v. State of Tamil Nadu
(Criminal Appeal No. 165 of 1971 decided on February 25, 1972) stressed the
importance of making prompt report to the police regarding the commission of
cognizable offence. It was observed : "First information report in a criminal case
is an extremely vital and valuable piece of evidence for the purpose of
corroborating, the oral evidence adduced at the trial. The importance of 'the above
report can hardly be overestimated from the standpoint of the accused. The object
of insisting upon prompt lodging of the report to the police in respect of
commission of an offence is to obtain early information regarding the
circumstances in which the crime was committed, the names of the actual culprits
and the part played by them as well as the names of eye witnesses present at the
scene, of occurrence. Delay in lodging the first information report quite often
results in embellishment which is a creature of afterthought. On account of delay,
the report not only gets bereft of the advantage of spontaneity, danger creeps in of
the introduction of coloured version exaggerated account or concocted story as a
result of deliberation and consultation. It is, therefore, essential that the delay in
lodging of the first information report should be satisfactorily explained."

Delay in despatch of FIR '' Fabricated and delayed FIR as a matter of fact has
been the basic submission in support of the appeal. it is now, however, well
settled and we need not dilate on this score over again that mere delay cannot be
said to be fatal to a criminal prosecution. First Information Report cannot but be
termed to be the starting point and thus sets in motion of a criminal investigation.
In this context the observation of this Court in Apren Joseph alias Current
Kunjukunju & others vs. The State of Kerala seems to be rather apposite. In
paragraph 11 of the report this Court stated as below: ". Now first information
report is a report relating to the commission of an offence given to the police and
recorded by it under Section 154, Cr.P.C. As observed by the Privy Council in
Emperor v. Khwaja 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
eyewitness. First information report under S. 154 is not even considered a

4 APREN JOSEPH ALIAS CURRENT KUNJUKUNJU & ORS. Vs.THE STATE OF KERALA;

Citations: 1973 AIR, 1 1973 SCR (2) 16

7
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. 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 for the delay and consider its effect on the trustworthiness or
otherwise of the prosecution version. In our opinion, no duration of time in the
abstract can be fixed as reasonable for giving information of a crime to the police,
the question of reasonable time being a matter for determination by the court in
each case. Mere delay in lodging the first information report with the police is,
therefore, not necessarily, as a matter of law, fatal to the prosecution. The effect
of delay in doing so in the light of the plausibility of the explanation forthcoming
for such delay accordingly must fall for consideration on all the facts and
circumstances of a given case5."

Delay in giving information: "First information report in a criminal case is an


extremely vital and valuable piece of evidence for the purpose of corroborating
the oral evidence adduced at the trial. The importance of the report can hardly be
overestimated from the standpoint of the accused. The object of insisting upon
prompt lodging of the report to the police in respect of commission of an offence
is to obtain early information regarding the circumstances in which the crime was
committed, the names of the actual culprits and the part played by them as well as
the names of eye witnesses present at the scene of occurrence. Delay in lodging
the first information report quite often results in embellishment which is a
creature of afterthought. On account of delay, the report not only gets bereft of the
advantage of spontaneity, danger creeps in of the introduction of coloured
version, exaggerated account or concocted story as a result of deliberation and
consultation. It is therefore, essential that the delay in the lodging of the first
information report should be satisfactorily explained.6"

There can be no second FIR: '' In Meharaj Singh, The Hon'ble Supreme Court
of India explained the consequences that may ensue due to delay in dispatching
FIR to the Magistrate in the following words : "..........One of the checks is the
receipt of the copy of the FIR, called a special report in a murder case, by the
local Magistrate. If this report is received by the Magistrate late it can give rise to
an inference that the FIR was not lodged at the time it is alleged to have been

Munshi Prasad And Others VS State of Bihar; Citations: AIR 2001 SC 3031, 2001 (2) ALD
Cri 882
6 In the case of ''Madhukar Dattoba Jadhav and another VS The State of Maharastra '', it was
observed that ''The Supreme Court in the case of Thulia Kali v. The State of Tamil Nadu, 1972
Cri.L.J. 1296, in Head Note (B) it is held thus:--5

8
recorded, unless, of course the prosecution can offer a satisfactory explanation for
the delay in despatching or receipt of the copy of the FIR by the local Magistrate.
Prosecution has led no evidence at all in this behalf......7"

'' In the case of T.T. Antony, it has been held by The Hon'ble Supreme Court of
India that there can be no second FIR. While dealing with Section 154 and other
relevant provisions, this Court said: " An information given under sub-section
(1) of Section 154 Cr.P.C is commonly known as first information report
(FIR) though this term is not used in the Code. It is a very important
document. And as its nickname suggests it is the earliest and the first information
of a cognizable offence recorded by an officer in charge of a police station. It sets
the criminal law in motion and marks the commencement of the investigation
which ends up with the formation of opinion under Section 169 or 170 Cr.P.C, as
the case may be, and forwarding of a police report under Section 173 Cr.P.C.

In the case of Ramesh Baburao Devaskar, The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India,
it was observed that " A First Information Report cannot be lodged in a murder
case after the inquest has been held8.''

In Dharma Rama Bhagare v. State of Maharashtra, The Hon'ble Supreme Court


of India held that FIR is never treated as a substantive piece of evidence; it can
only be used for corroborating or contradicting its maker when he appears in
Court as a witness.

In the case of Vikram and Ors. v. State of Maharashtra31, The Hon'ble Supreme
Court of India noticed : "It may be true that P.W. 2 had informed the officer in
charge of the Police Station on telephone, but the circumstances in which the said
call had to be made has been noticed by us heretobefore. The Head Constable
states that he had written down the same but then it must have been a cryptic
report and only for the purpose of visiting the scene of occurrence.He as well as
the Investigating Officer did not say that it was a detailed report. If, in the
aforementioned premise, another First Information Report which was a detailed
one came to be recorded, no exception can be taken to the same being treated as a
First Information Report."

FIR is not supposed to an encyclopedia: The Hon'ble Supreme Court held that
''Though the FIR is not supposed to an encyclopedia of the factors concerning the
crime, yet there must be some definite information vis-`- vis the crime9.''

7
8
9

Pandurang Chandrakant Mhatre & Ors Vs State of Maharashtra, it was observed .


Ramesh Baburao Devaskar's case
Gorle S. Naidu Vs State of A.P. and Ors.

'' F.I.R can come from any quarters, even anonymous sources-- it is not
encyclopedia of entire proseution case It need not give all details 10''

F.I.R. need not contain all details of the occurrence: In the case of ''STATE
OF HARYANA Vs. SHER SINGH & ORS., Supreme Court of India held that
''The fact that P.W. 3 did not mention in the F.I.R. that she had informed some
persons of the village before the lodging of the F.I.R. and that for this reason her
statement could not be relied on is not correct. The F.I.R. need not contain all
details of the occurrence nor does the omission to mention the name of persons
whom she informed in the village detract from the credibility of the report. The
omission is a mere omission of details and not a contradiction.11''

''F.I.R not inteded to be a very detailed document . It is meant to give only the
substative of the allegations made12.''

Omission of details in First and Inquest Report-Effect of-: In the case of


PEDDA NARAYANA & ORS. Vs. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH 13; The
Hon'ble Supreme Court of India held that ''the High Court rightly believed the
evidence of the prosecution witnesses and there was no error in its approach to the
case. (1) The witness who gave the first information must have been extremely
perturbed having seen the attack on his companion. Even so, all the essential
details which a first information should contain are there. The names of the
accused and the circumstances of the murderous assault are mentioned. Shorn of
minute detail the broad picture presented by the prosecution was mentioned in the
first information which was lodged soon after the occurrence. it is neither
customary nor necessary to mention every minute detail in the first information.''
(See also 1976 Crl.L.J 1921; 1975 Crl.L.J 870 (SC); 1982 Crl.L.J 173; 1978
Crl.L.J 9 (NOC); AIR 1981 SC 631).

''Omission of details in FIR do not affect prosecution case14''

Names of culprits in F.I.R: It was observed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of


India in the case of ''State of Maharashtra & Anr Vs Mohd. Sajid Husain Mohd.
S. Husain etc'' that ''... Once a criminal case is set in motion by lodging an
information in regard to the commission of the offence in terms of Section 154

10
11
12
13
14

1987 Crl .L.J 1965


Citations: 1981 AIR 1021, 1981 SCR (3) 1
AIR 1975 SC 1252; AIR 1985 SC 1384; 1985 Crl.L.J 1933
1975 AIR 1252, 1975 SCR 84
1982 SCC (CR) 223

10
Cr. PC, it may not always be held to be imperative that all the accused persons
must be named in the First Information Report.15''

The Hon'ble Supreme Court held that

''Name of accused absent in F.I.R.

Evidence of reliable eye witnesses giving name of accused cannot be rejected.16''

In Emperor vs. Khwaja Nazir Ahmad [AIR (32) 1945 PC 18], the Privy Council
spelt out the power of the investigation of the police, as follows : "In India as has
been shown there is a statutory right on the part of the police to investigate the
circumstances of an alleged cognizable crime without requiring any authority
from the judicial authorities, and it would, as their Lordships think, be an
unfortunate result if it should be held possible to interfere with those statutory
rights by an exercise of the inherent jurisdiction of the Court."

This plenary power of the police to investigate a cognizable offence is, however,
not unlimited. It is subject to certain well recognised limitation. One of them, is
pointed out by the Privy Council, thus : "if no cognizable offence is disclosed,
and still more if no offence of any kind is disclosed, the police would have no
authority to undertake an investigation.17"

In Narangs' case, it was, however, observed that it would be appropriate to


conduct further investigation with the permission of the Court. However, the
sweeping power of investigation does not warrant subjecting a citizen each time
to fresh investigation by the police in respect of the same incident, giving rise to
one or more cognizable offences, consequent upon filing of successive FIRs
whether before or after filing the final report under Section 173(2) Cr.P.C. It
would clearly be beyond the purview of Sections 154 and 156 Cr.P.C. nay, a case
of abuse of the statutory power of investigation in a given case.

The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the said judgment (a Registered Society v. Union
of India & Ors. [1999 (6) SCC 667].) at paragraph 174 of the report has held
thus :"The other direction, namely, the direction to CBI to investigate "any other
offence" is wholly erroneous and cannot be sustained. Obviously, direction for
investigation can be given only if an offence is, prima facie, found to have been

15 see also In Vinod G. Asrani v. State of Maharashtra, [2007 (3 ) SCALE 241], and Kari
Choudhary v. Sita Devi and Ors.,

16 AIR 1983 SC 554; AIR 1987 SC 923


17 see also In State of Haryana vs. Bhajan Lal & Ors. [1992 Suppl.(1) SCC 335]; State of West
Bengal vs. Swapan Kumar Guha (1982) 1 SCC 561; S.N.Sharma vs. Bipen Kumar Tiwari (1970)
1 SCC 653; R.P.Kapur vs. State of Punjab (1960) 3 SCR 388; Nandini Satpathy vs. P.L.Dani
(1978) 2 SCC 424 and Prabhu Dayal Deorah vs. District Magistrate, Kamrup (1974) 1 SCC 103],

and the judgment of the Privy Council in Khwaja Nazir Ahmad's case.

11
committed or a person's involvement is prima facie established, but a direction to
CBI to investigate whether any person has committed an offence or not cannot be
legally given. Such a direction would be contrary to the concept and philosophy
of "LIFE" and "LIBERTY" guaranteed to a person under Article 21 of the
Constitution. This direction is in complete negation of various decisions of this
Court in which the concept of "LIFE" has been explained in a manner which has
infused "LIFE" into the letters of Article 21. 18"

''

Ravinder Kumar v. State of Punjab (SC) 2001 Crl.L.J.4242, relevant

paragraphs of which read as under: " When there is criticism of the ground that
FIR in a case was delayed the Court has to look at the reason why there was such
a delay. There can be a variety of genuine causes for FIR lodgment to get
delayed. Rural people might be ignorant of the need for informing the police of a
crime without any lapse of time. This kind of unconversantness is not too
uncommon among urban people also. They might not immediately think of going
to the police station. Another possibility is due to lack of adequate transport
facilities for the informers to reach the police station. The third, which is a quite
common bearing, is that the kith and kin of deceased might take some appreciable
time to regain a certain level of tranquility of mind or sedativeness of temper for
moving to the police station for the purpose of furnishing the requisite
information. Yet another cause is, the persons who are supposed to give such
information themselves could be physically impaired that the police had to reach
them on getting some nebulous information about the incident.''

HELD19: We are not providing an exhausting catalogue of instances which could


cause delay in lodging the FIR. Our effort is to try to point out the stale demand
made in the criminal courts to treat the FIR vitiated merely on the ground of
Crl.Appeal No.335-DB of 2005 -12- delay in its lodgment cannot be approved as
a legal corollary. In any case, where there is delay in making the FIR the court is
to look at the causes are not attributable to any effort to concoct a version no
consequence shall be attached to the mere delay in lodging the FIR. Vide Zahoor
v. State of U.P. 1991 Supl.(1) SCC 372; Tara Singh v. State of Punjab 1991
Suppl.(1) SCC 536; Jamna v. State of U.P. 1994 (1) SCC

18 It was observed in '' SESCERREVTIACREYS,, MUI.NPO.R&IRORRISG.ATION &

RURAL ENGG. Vs. SAHNGOO RAM ARYA & ANR.; DATE OF JUDGMENT:
07/05/2002''
19 Anil Kumar .....Appellant vs State of Punjab.....Respondent ., ;Sanjay Kumar, Dalbir
Singh and Ajay Kumar .....Appellants vs. State of Punjab .....Respondent., ; Crl.Appeal No.422DB of 2005; Ashok Kumar .....Appellant vs. State of Punjab ......Respondent

12

In Tara Singh (supra) made the following observations: `It is well settled that
the delay in giving the FIR by itself cannot be ground to doubt the prosecution
case.''

In RAM KUMAR PANDE Vs. RESPONDENT: THE STATE OF MADHYA


PRADESH; HELD : '' The First Information Report is a previous statement
which, strictly speaking, can be only used to corroborate or contradict the maker
of it.20''

In MALKIAT SINGH AND ORS. Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB; HELD: 1. The First
Information Report is not substantive evidence. It can be used only to contradict
the maker thereof or for corroborating his evidence and also to show that the
implication of the accused was not an after- thought. 2. Since the examination of
first information was dispensed with by consent F.I.R. became part of the
prosecution evidence21. ...''

In RAM JAG AND OTHERS Vs. THE STATE OF U.P.; HELD : It is true that
witnesses cannot be called upon to explain every hour's delay and a commonsense
view has to be taken in ascertaining whether the First Information Report was,
lodged after an undue delay so as to afford enough scope for manipulating
evidence. Whether the delay is so long as to throw a cloud of suspicion on the
seeds of the prosecution must depend upon a variety of factors which would vary
from case to case. Even a long delay in filing report of an occurrence can be
condoned if the witnesses on whose evidence the prosecution relies have no
motive for implicating the accused. On the other hand, prompt filing of the report
is not an unmistakable guarantee of the truthfulness of the version of the
prosecution22.

In Sarwan Singh And Ors. vs State Of Punjab 23; IT WAS OBSERVED: it is well
settled that mere delay in despatch of the F.I.R. is not a circumstance which can
throw out the prosecution case in its entirety. The matter was considered by this
Court in P[sic]a Singh v. State of Punjab where this Court observed as follows:
But when we find in this case that the F.I.R. was actually recorded without delay
and the investigation started on the basis of that F. I. R and there is no other
infirmity brought to our notice, then, however improper or objectionable the
delayed receipt of the report by the Magistrate concerned it cannot by itself justify
the conclusion that the investigation was tainted and the prosecution
insupportable.

20
21
22
23

1975 AIR 1026, 1975 SCR (3) 519


1991 SCR (2) 256, 1991 SCC (4) 341
1974 AIR 606, 1974 SCR (3) 9
AIR 1976 SC 2304, 1976 CriLJ 1757, (1976) 4 SCC 369

13

HELD: '' General diary entry is not first information report. Entry not to be signed
by the person giving the information, but the first information report has to be
signed by the person giving it24.''

Telephone call being too criptic could not constitute the FIR 25. Further, it was
held that ''Telephonic message cane be F.I.R26.''

First information Report is not a substantive or a primary piece of evidence of the


truth of its contents27.

Yet, it was held in the case AIR 1953 Madh 249, where the first information
report is also a dying declaration it can be used as substantive or primary evidence
as a dying declaration.

F.I.R can be tendered in evidence under chapter II of Evidence Act, such as dying
declaration u/sec 32 (1) or as part of informant's conduct u/s 8. It can ordinarily
be used only for the purpose of corroborating,ontradicting or discrediting u/ss
157,145, and 155 of Evidence Act, its author if examined and not any other
witness28.

F.I.R when not hit by sec 25 of Evidence Act and u/s 162 of Cr.P.C, it is
admissible in evidence, as conduct of the maker u/s 8 of Evidence Act29.

Facts in F.I.R not read over to informant- not a serious infirmity when the
informant himself deposed in the case and proved the F.I.R30.

''Police duty bound to lodge F.I.R and investigation into cognizable offenceRecording of F.I.R is mandatory31.''

HELD: ''F.I.R may hearsay. It need not necessarily be given by a person having
the first hand knowledge of facts32''

SOME RELEVANT CASE -LAW AS TO ''Delay by itself cannot be held for


rejecting evidence which is otherwise credit worthy : AIR 1976 SC 2455; AIR

AIR 1962 Cal 504


AIR 1975 SC 1453
1990 Crl .L.J 1306
AIR 1957 SC 366; AIR 1958 AP 571; AIR 1968 ORISSA 167
AIR 1957 SC 366; 1975 Crl. L. J 634
AIR 1939 PC 47; AIR 1964 SC 1850
1988 Crl.L.J 1412
31 1986 (111) Crimes 40
24
25
26
27
28
29
30

32 AIR 1974 SC 1936

14
1972 SC 2679; AIR 1974 SC 606; AIR 1973 SC SC 1; AIR 1974 SC 2118; 1982
Crl .L.J 36; AIR 1983 SC 810; AIR 1972 SC 2679.
CONCLUSION:
A fortiori, it is to be remembered that in the recent case, State of U.P Vs
Krishna Mater & Ors, 2010 (2) L.S 42 (SC), it was held that FIR need not be an
encyclopedia of minute details of the incident nor it is necessary to mention therein
the evidence on which prosecution proposes to rely at the trial.