About First Information Report

--- Justice Md. Hamidul Haque

Besides filing a complaint, a criminal case may be started by lodging a FIR in the
police station. FIR is the first recorded version of an occurrence relating to a
cognizable offence but it may not contain all the detailed facts of an occurrence.
FIR is not substantive evidence, it can be used for the purpose of corroborating, or
contradicting the maker. So, if some witnesses state something which is not in the
FIR, the statement of those witnesses cannot be disbelieved only on the ground
that the fact stated by them are not in the FIR. It has been held in the case of State
s. !bdus Satter reported in "# $%R &!$' "" that the evidence of a witness
cannot be re(ected or ignored because the informant had made an omission to
mention about that fact in the FIR. In the case of )he State s. )a(ul Islam
reported in "* $%R #+, it has been held that FIR cannot be used to contradict the
evidence of any witness other than the informant. -owever, while considering
such evidence, the court is to consider whether such evidence of the witness
amounts to improvement or embellishment of the prosecution case. .hen a fact is
introduced for the first time in the court by a witness, it is to be seen whether there
was any opportunity of disclosing that fact in the FIR or at the investigation stage
before the I./. If the fact was not disclosed earlier when there was an opportunity,
the subse0uent discloser may be considered as an attempt to improve the
prosecution case. .hen a vital fact was not disclosed before the I./. due to fear, it
was held in the case of 1ahmudul Islam 2 Raton s. )he State reported in 34
B%$ &!$' 3"+ 5ara 67 8 ,# $%R &!$' 6, that in view of the situation prevailing
in the country it was not unlikely that a witness would hesitate to tell the truth
before the I./. for fear of his life.
In some cases, it is found that the FIR case is not supported by the informant
himself. It has been held in the case of 9horshed s. State : reported in ,6 $%R
&-;' #6< that when the informant himself disown the FIR case, even then the
accused may be convicted if the FIR case is proved by other witnesses and other
evidence as may be adduced by the prosecution.
!s regards what information shall be treated as FIR, there are various decisions. If
not considered carefully, these may create confusion. )he e=pression >First
Information? is not used in the ;ode of ;riminal 5rocedure. )he e=pression @first
informationA has been used in regulation 3"# of 5olice Regulations Bengal, 6+"#
which is now in force in Bangladesh. Regulation 3"#&a' is as followsB
@3"#&a'. )he first information of cognizable crime mentioned in section
6,", ;ode of ;riminal 5rocedure, shall be drawn up by the officerCinC
charge of the police station in B.5. Form Do. 3< in accordance with the
instructions printed with it.A
&c' )he information of the commission of a cognizable crime that shall
first reach the police, whether oral or written, shall be treated as the first
information. It may be given by a person ac0uainted with the facts directly
or on hearsay, but in either case it constitutes the first information re0uired
by law, upon which the en0uiry under section 6,<, ;ode of ;riminal
5rocedure, shall be taken up.
So, we find that the words @first informationA are used in the regulation Do. 3"#
of the 5RB, but no such e=pression is used in section 6," of the ;ode of ;riminal
5rocedure in accordance with which every information relating to commission of
cognizable offence is recorded. It appears that the regulation Do. 3"# of the 5RB
along with many other regulations were framed under section 63 of the 5olice
!ct, 6*76 and the above regulation along with other regulations received approval
of the then 5rovincial Eovernment of Bengal under /rder Do. +"<6C56. &See
5olice Regulations Bengal, 6+"#, volume C6, page 3 of the notification part.' )he
above /rder Do. +"<6C56 was issued on 3< $ecember, 6+"#. )he approval was
given in e=ercise of the power conferred under section 3"6 read with 3"# of the
Eovernment of India !ct, 6+#,.
Fnder section 63 of the 5olice !ct, 6*76 power has been given to the InspectorC
Eeneral of 5olice to frame such orders and rules as he shall deem e=pedient
relating to the organisation, classification and distribution of the police force and
also regarding the services to be performed by them and for rendering the police
force efficient in the discharge of his duties.
)he orders and notification issued by the InspectorCEeneral in accordance with
the power conferred upon him under section 63, got approval of the 5rovincial
Eovernment and those notifications and orders were incorporated in the 5olice
Regulations Bengal. )he status of @RegulationsA are not the same as those of
@RulesA. Rules are framed by the Eovernment in accordance with the rule making
power conferred on the Eovernment by the statute itself but regulations are made
by an institution or organisation established by the statute. From the 5olice
Regulations, it is clear that these are framed by the InspectorCEeneral of 5olice
intended to guide the police force for rendering efficient service in discharging
their duties. )he regulations also relate to the organisation, classification and
distribution of the police force. Regulation 3"# provides the guide line for
recording informations of cognizable offence that shall first reach the police shall
be treated as the first information because it constitutes first information as
re0uired by law.
5erhaps due to the language used in Regulation 3"#&a'&c', the confusion has been
created as to which of the informations, if there are more than one, shall be treated
as FIR. )here is no word >first? in section 6," rather the section starts with the
word @GveryA. )he relevant portion of the section is reproduced belowB
@6,". Information in cognizable cases.C Gvery information relating to the
commission of a cognizable offence if given to an officer in charge of a
police station, shall be reduced to writing HHH.., 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 into a book to be kept by such officer in such form as the
Eovernment may prescribe in this behalfA.
It is found that in section 6,", the words >every information? has been used twice
and it is provided that substance of every such information shall at first be
reduced to writing and then be entered into the book in such form as prescribed by
the Eovernment. )he section does not prohibit recording or entering an
information which is not the first one in point of time.
In view of the fact that there is no e=pression @first informationA in section 6," of
the ;ode, under which information of a cognizable offence is recorded in the
5olice Station, the Regulation 3"#, can not prevail over section 6," of the ;ode of
;riminal 5rocedure.
In great many decisions, the information first in point of time was considered as
FIR and all subse0uent informations were considered as statements under section
676 of the ;ode of ;riminal 5rocedure. )here is an another view : if investigation
has started on the basis of a E.$ entry, that E.$. entry shall be considered as FIR
and subse0uent FIR lodged after commencement of investigation shall be
considered as a statement under section 676 of the ;ode and shall not be
admissible in view of the provisions of section 673. : )he above views are found
in the cases reported in #* $%R &!$' #66, 7 1%R &!$' 3<+, ,+ $%R &-;$'
7,#, "7 $%R &-;$' ,<,, * B%$ &-;$' "6*.
In the case reported in #* $%R &!$' #66 &the case of 1uslimuddin s. State'
>somebody? was sent to the police station to give information of the murder of the
husband of the informant of a subse0uent FIR. )he subse0uent FIR was recorded
by a S.I. of police who went to the place of occurrence for some other business.
)he ma(ority view was that the information given by >somebody? was the FIR and
what the wife of the victim stated to the S.I. in the place of occurrence fall within
perview of section 676 of the ;ode. )he principle laid down in this case was
followed in the case reported in 7 1%R &!$' 3<+ &the ;ase of !nsar 1d. ;han
1ia s. the State'. In this case, a bus driver was killed by a member of !nsar
force by firing a shot from his rifle when there was an altercation between them.
.hen S.I. of the relevant police station heard about the incident, he went to the
place of occurrence after recording the fact in the Eeneral $iary. 5..6, brother of
the deceased who went there after receiving a message over telephone, handed
over the details of the incident in writing to the S.I. 5..6 mentioned that he came
to know from 5..3 about the fact as to how his brother was killed. 5..3 was a
passenger of the same bus and he also received in(ury from the bullet shot. )he
S.I. then treated this written information of 5..6 as F.I.R. In this background, it
was held that the E.$. recorded by the S.I before leaving the police station after
receiving the information of the incident was the F.I.R. and the written statement
of 5..6 was not the FIR, as it was not an information earliest in point of time, it
was a statement uIs 676 of the ;ode.
In the case reported in "7 $%R &-;$' ,<,, it is found that a member of a local F.5.
and another person sent an information to the police station to the effect that some
unknown persons murdered one Siddi0ur Rahman who was sleeping in his room at
about 6.44 !.1 on 63.66.**. Fpon receiving this information, the /.;. of the
)hana recorded E.$. Gntry Do. #7" dated 6#.66.** and went to the place of
occurrence where the wife of the victim narrated how her husband was murdered
and she suspected that one Shah(ahan who had 0uarrel with her husband, by hiring
some other people might have killed her husband. )he /.;. reduced her verbal
statement to writing and sent the same to the )hana to record FIR in the prescribed
form. In this background, it was observed that E.$. entry made by the /.;. on
receiving the information of murder from the F.5. member was F.I.R and the
statement of the wife of the victim was a statement under section 676 of the ;ode.
In the case reported in ,+ $%R &-;$' 7,#, the /.;. of the relevant )hana
received information about the incident and went to the place of occurrence,
searched for the assailants, seized a percussion cap of revolver, prepared a seizure
list and a sketch map. .hen he heard that the victim was taken to the hospital for
treatment, he went there, met elder brother and other relatives of the victim. -e
asked them to lodge e(har but they replied that they would lodge FIR later on.
)hen the /.;. went back to the police station and recorded E.$. entry Do. +"3 at
66.", 5.1 dated 37.*.3444. /n 3<.*.3444, at about 64.#4 5.1., on receipt of the
written e(har from the wife of the deceased, /.;. started 5.S. ;ase Do. 34&*'3444.
It was held in this case that E.$. entry made by the /.;. was the FIR and the
written e(har of the wife of the victim was a statement under section 676 of the
;ode as it was received during investigation.
)here is another line of decisions wherein it has been held that the information
received first in point of time may not necessarily be considered as FIR and a
subse0uent information may be considered as FIR in consideration of the facts
and circumstances, that a vague or incomplete information though may be first in
point of time may not be considered as FIR, that there is basic difference between
a E.$ Gntry which is made under section "" of the 5olice ;ode and FIR which is
recorded under section 6," of the ;ode of ;riminal 5rocedure. Vide 38 DLR
(HCD) 289, 6 MLR (AD) 170, 11 BLT (AD) 53, 21 BLD (AD) 103, 8 BLC
(HCD) 275, 9 BLC (HCD) 63, 10 BLC (HCD) 565.
In the case reported in 7 1%R &!$' 6<4 &the case of !bdul 9hale0ue s. the
State', the father of the victim lodged the first FIR stating that her daughter who
was married to the accused died after taking poison. Investigation started on the
basis of this FIR and the I./. went to the place of occurrence, he found marks of
in(ury on the dead body and sent the body for autopsy. )hereafter a FIR was
lodged. It was held in this case that filing of the FIR by the father of the victim
stating that his daughter died after taking poison was not a bar to file second FIR
when subse0uently it transpired at the time of investigation that the death was
homicidal in nature.
In the case reported in 66 B%) &!$' ,#, two persons were murdered and mother of
one went to the thana during the incident when the accused persons were assaulting
her son : the police officer on duty after making a E.$. entry proceeded towards
the 5./. and on his way he met the mother of the other victim. She narrated the
details of the occurrence to the officer who recorded that as FIR. In this case it was
argued that the E.$. entry should have been treated as FIR and the subse0uent FIR
should have been treated as a statement under section 676 of the ;ode. !gainst such
argument, the !ppellate $ivision has observed that investigation does not always
begin immediately after registering a case or upon arrival of I./. on the scene of the
occurrence after receiving the first information but when the I./. takes the first
concrete step for ascertaining the offence and the culprits. It is also observed that
very often the first information lodged with the police is not a complete document
and if during the interval between the first information and taking of steps in the
nature of investigation, further information is furnished to the police, such further
information is merely supplemental to the FIR and cannot be considered as
statement made to the police during the course of investigation.
In the case reported in #* $%R &-;$' 3*+, the ;ourt e=amined the 0uestionB
which one of the several informations about the same occurrence is to be regarded
as FIR. !fter e=amination of the legal position the ;ourt has come to the finding
that it is a 0uestion of fact and is dependent upon the facts and circumstances of
each case. In this case, two vague and indefinite informations were given to the
police on the basis of which police went to the place of occurrence and
subse0uently police suo moto lodged FIR after getting the post mortem report.
)he FIR lodged by the police was considered as FIR and the earlier two vague
and indefinite informations were not considered as FIR.
From the case reported in 36 B%$ &!$' 64# it is found that a E.$. entry was made
on +.+.+#, occurrence took place on 3.+.+# and police lodged FIR on 6<.+.+#. !
post mortem e=amination was held and on receipt of the report, police suo moto
lodged FIR. In this case also the earlier E.$. entry was not considered as FIR.
In several decisions, E.$. entries made before lodging FIR were considered as
FIR on the ground that the E.$. entry was the information about the incident first
in point of time. /n the other hand, there are also decisions where E.$. entries
and FIR were found to be distinguishable from each other vide + B%; &-;$' 7#,
+ 1%R &-;$' *3, 64 B%; &-;$' ,7,.
! Eeneral $iary is maintained in every police station in accordance with the
provisions of section "" of the 5olice !ct, 6*76. It is maintained in B.5. Form Do.
7, of 5.R.B. Such a diary containsB
i' all complaints and charges preferredJ
ii' nameInames of the complaintJ
iii' names of the persons arrestedJ
iv' the offence charged against themJ
v' the weapons and the properties taken into possession by the policeJ
vi' names of the witnesses e=amined.
/n the other hand, in view of the provisions of section 6," of the ;ode, the
re0uirements of FIR areB
i' information must relate to a cognizable offenceJ
ii' such information if given verbally, shall be reduced to writing and be
read over to the informantJ
iii' every such information shall be signed by the person giving the
information J
iv' the substance of the information shall be entered into a book in such
form as the Eovernment may prescribeJ
v' such information be maintained in B.5 Form Do. 3<.
In the last three reported cases as mentioned above, the -igh ;ourt $ivision, after
considering the relevant provisions of the 5olice !ct and the ;ode, has observed
that a E.$. entry and FIR are not the same and one cannot be the substitute of the
other and the purpose also are not the same. It has been observed in the case
reported in 64 B%; &-;$' ,7, that a E.$. entry without fullfilling the
re0uirements of FIR, cannot be said to be the first information report.
In the decisions where it was observed that information given to the police
verbally or in the form of E.$. entry, if first in point to time, shall be the FIR, and
all other subse0uent information or FIR shall be considered as statement under
section 676 of the ;ode and shall not be admissible in evidence in view of the
provisions of section 673 of the ;ode, no discussion was made as to the
re0uirements of a E.$. entry and that of a FIR, nor any reference was made to
section "" of the 5olice !ct, regulations 3"#, #<< of the 5.R.B. !s FIR is recorded
in accordance with the provisions of section 6," of the ;ode, naturally before
treating an information as FIR, it is to be seen whether it fulfills the re0uirement
of section 6," of the ;ode. In view of the language used in this section, any vague
or indefinite or incomplete information, even if it relates to a cognizable offence,
cannot be an information to be treated as FIR. )his is also clear from regulation
3"#&d' of 5.R.B and from the decision in the case reported in 66 B%) &!$' ,#. So,
any information or a E.$. entry which is first in point of time may not necessarily
be treated as FIR.
FIR is one of the important documents which form part of the case record. )hese
documents are sent to the court under section 6<#&#!'&a'&b' along with the police
report and prosecution proposes to rely on these documents. FIR is the first
document which is marked e=hibit and while marking this an e=hibit, the signature
of the maker is also marked e=hibit. )hough FIR is not substantive evidence it is the
basis on which the prosecution case stands. If such FIR is given verbally to a police
officer, he is re0uired to reduce it to writing. )hen it is to be read over to the maker
and if he admits that his statement was correctly reduced to writing, his signature or
thumb impression is obtained. In view of such legal re0uirements, a E.$ entry may
not be treated as FIR and cannot be marked e=hibit as FIR.
In the case reported in #, ;...D. 73# &1oni 1ohan Ehose s. )he 9ing
Gmperor', the court considered the third information as FIR in view of the facts
and circumstances of that case. In that case, the first information was found to be
vague and the police found the second information as not true and as the third
information for the first time indicated commission of a cognizable offence, the
third information was treated as FIR. So, vague and indefinite information even if
it relates to a cognizable offence cannot be treated as FIR. )his may be made clear
by an e=ample. >!? saw a dead body in a paddy field. -e informed the officer on
duty in the thana about this fact. )his information cannot be treated as FIR
because it is vague though this information may be entered in the general diary
but such a E.$. entry cannot be treated as FIR. De=t, a second information is
given by a chowkidarIdafadar that he found the dead body of >B? of village >5? in
the paddy field of >;? of village >1?. )his second information is also not a FIR,
though from this information more particulars were available as to the identity of
the dead person and description of the place where the dead body was found, still
this information is also vague. )hen one >$? comes to the thana and informs the
officer on duty that his son >B? was called at about * 5.1. on the last night by >K?
and >L? but thereafter his son did not return. In the morning, receiving an
information from one >F? that dead body of his son was lying in the paddy field of
>;? of village >1?, he went there and found that the dead body was the dead body
of his son. >$? also informed that his son had some dispute with >K? M >L? about
some land and they called his son to settle the dispute.
)he officer on duty reduced the statement of >$? to writing, read over the same to
>$? and obtained his signature, entered into the book after filing in the FIR form.
)his third information is the FIR as it fulfills all the re0uirements of section 6,"
of the ;ode.
In a case reported in 5%$ 6++<&kar' 66+ &the case of Ehanwa Bhuttu s.
Eovernment of Sindh', the first FIR was registered at the instance of a police
officer who was suspected of being an accused himself. )he second FIR was
registered at the instance of a servant of the informant of the third FIR. .hen the
informant lodged the FIR he stated that the earlier two FIRs did not reflect the true
facts. In the above facts and circumstances, the court gave direction to the police to
perform legal obligations and to register the third information as FIR. It has been
observed in this case that if information subse0uently given to a police officer
discloses a different offence which is cognizable, unless it is a mere amplification
of the first version, must be recorded by the police as FIR. In that case it was argued
that an alternative remedy by way of filing a complaint before a 1agistrate was
there and such subse0uent FIR shall be barred. !s against this argument, it was held
that mere fact of availability of an alternative remedy may not deter the court from
giving direction to the police to record an FIR in an appropriate case.
If an information which is first in point of time is always considered as FIR, the
conse0uence may frustrate real (ustice. Sometimes it happens that those who
actually committed the offence, to save themselves, lodge a misleading
information narrating a concocted story. In this connection, the case reported in 7
1%R &!$' 6<4 may be cited again. In this case we find that the accused persons
misled the father of the victim stating that his daughter committed suicide by
taking poison and accordingly the father lodged FIR stating that his daughter died
by taking poison. /n the basis of this FIR, when I./. started investigation, he
found marks of in(ury on the dead body and sent the body for autopsy and after
receiving the 5.1. report, second FIR was lodged by the police. In these
circumstances it was held that the second FIR was not barred, the second FIR was
neither treated as a statement under section 676 of the ;ode nor it was considered
inadmissible under section 673 of the ;ode.
-ere, the case of State s. Nillul Bari and others as reported in ,< $%R &!$' 63+
may also be cited. In this case, one ;hapa was found dead in her bed room. )he
accused &some inmates and close relations of ;hapa' lodged FIR stating that
;hapa was murdered by some unknown miscreants by an iron rod from outside
the window in order to take away her ornaments. 5olice started investigation and
found that the FIR story was not true and found evidence that some inmates of the
house murdered ;hapa. )he police lodged another FIR and on the basis of this
FIR, charge sheet was submitted and trial was held.
So, it may be said that the 0uestion whether an information received first in point
of time may be considered as FIR, depends upon the facts and circumstances of
each case. In view of the language used in section 6," of the ;ode, regulation Do.
3"#&d' of the 5.R.B. and the weight of the decisions on this point given by the
superior courts of this subCcontinent, now it may be said that a subse0uent
information, even if third in point of time, may also be considered as FIR and may
not be treated as a statement under section 676 of the ;ode and shall not be
inadmissible under section 673 of the ;ode.