Académique Documents
Professionnel Documents
Culture Documents
IRTRODUCTION
A First Information Report (FIR) is a written document prepared by police
organizations in India when they receive about the commission of a cognizable
offence. It is generally a complaint lodged with the police by the victim of a
cognizable offense or by someone on his or her behalf, but anyone can make such a
report either orally or in writing to the police.
For a non cognizable offense a Community Service Register is created & registered.
FIR is an important document because it sets the process of criminal justice in motion.
It is only after the FIR is registered in the police station that the police take up
investigation of the case. Anyone who knows about the commission of a cognizable
offence, including police officers, can file an FIR.
As described in law,
Once the information has been recorded by the police, it must be signed by the
person giving the information.
proved.
Further, Section 145 of the Evidence Act provides:
A witness may be crossed-examined as to previous statements made by him in
writing or reduced into writing, and relevant to matters in question, without such
writing being shown to him, or being proved; but if it is intended to contradict him by
the writing, his attention must, before writing can be proved, be called to those parts
of it which are to be used for the purpose of contradicting him.
These normal rules of making previous statements have been substantially modified
in respect of statements falling under category (b) above.
Further, it may be noted that if any statement made to a police amounts to a
confession, such a confession cannot be proved against a person accused of any
offence. However, this bar on proof of confession made to a police officer is partially
lifted by Section 27 of the Evidence Act which provides:
When any fact is deposed to as discovered in consequence of information
received from a person accused of any offence, in the custody of a police officer, so
much of such information, whether it amounts to a confession or not, as relates
distinctly to the fact thereby discovered, may be proved.
The FIR is not substantive evidence, but it can be used to corroborate the informant
under Section 157 of the Evidence Act, or to contradict him under Section 145 of the
Act, if the informant is called as a witness at the time of trial. Obviously, the FIR
cannot be used for the purposes of corroborating or contradicting any witness other
than the one lodging the FIR.
The FIR can have better corroborative value if it is recorded before there is time and
opportunity to embellish or before the informants memory fails. 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 and
consider its effect on the trustworthiness or otherwise of the prosecution version. The
fact that the FIR does not contain the names of the accused or of the eyewitnesses, is
normally an important circumstance, but the omission loses its significance if the FIR
is from a person other than an eyewitness.
If the FIR is given to the police by the accused himself, it cannot possibly be used
either for corroboration or contradiction because the accused cannot be a prosecution
witness, and he would very rarely offer himself to be a defense witness under section
315 of the code. Moreover, if the FIR is of a confessional nature it cannot be proved
against the accused informant, because according to Section 25 of the Evidence Act,
no confession made to a police officer can be proved as against a person accused of
any offence. But it might become relevant under section 8 of the Evidence Act as to
his conduct. If FIR given by thee accused person is non- confessional, it may be
admissible in evidence against the accused as an admission under section 21 of the
Evidence Act, or again, as showing his conduct under section 8 of the Evidence Act.
Though, generally speaking the content of an FIR can be used only to contradict or
corroborate the maker thereof, there may be cases where the content becomes relevant
and can be put to some other use also. Omission of important facts affecting the
probabilities of the case, are relevant in judging the veracity of the prosecution case.
The Supreme Court has observed on the said subject matter, stating that the first
information report gives information of the commission of a cognizable crime. It may
be made by the complainant or by any other person knowing about the commission of
such offence. It is intended to set the criminal law in motion. Any information relating
to the commission of a cognizable offence is required to be reduced to writing by the
officer in charge of the police station which has to be signed by the person giving it
and the substance thereof is required to be entered into a book kept by such officer in
such form as the State Government may prescribe. It cannot be used as evidence
against the person making it, if in case, he himself is accused in the matter, neither to
corroborate or contradict other witnesses. It is not the requirement of law that the
minutest details be recorded in the Fir lodged immediately after the occurrence. The
fact of the state of mental agony of the person making who generally is the victim
himself , If not dead, or the relations or associates of the deceased victim apparent
under the shock of the occurrence reported has always to be kept in mind.
The FIR is the first version of the incident as received by the police. The statements in
the FIR must naturally get their due weight. An FIR is not a substantive piece of
evidence. The Court has to consider other evidence for deciding whether a case
should stand or fall. An FIR, being not a substantive evidence, it can be used as a
previous statement for the purposes of either corroborating its makers or for
contradicting him. The statement of a victim of rape in cross- examination which was
not there in the FIR could not be used for contradicting her.
FIR is not an encyclopedia. It is only to set the law in motion. It need not elaborate
but should contain necessary allegations to constitute cognizable offences. As per
section 154 of the Criminal Procedure Code, stating the use of FIR, a FIR is not a
substantial piece of evidence. It can only be used for corroborating or contradicting its
maker. It cannot be used to corroborate or contradict other witnesses Further,"
corroboration of its maker is permissible, but the first information report cannot be
used as substantive evidence or corroborating a statement of third partyThe fact
that a minute details are not mentioned should not be taken to mean the non- existence
of the fact stated. An FIR was made by close relatives of the deceased. Its reliability
was not allowed to be doubted on the ground that it was highly improbable that a
close relative would leave the victim in a hospital and would himself go to the police
station, particularly so when other relatives had also arrived at the hospital. There was
no delay in recording the FIR and sending the challanto the court. Absence of the
names of the accused in the inquest report was of no value because the investigating
officer and the officer conducting inquest were not questioned on that point.
CASE LAW
It was held in Pandurang Chandrakant Mhatre v. State of Maharashtra, that it is
fairly well settled that first information report is not a substantive piece of evidence
and it can be used only to discredit the testimony of the maker thereof and it cannot be