First Information Report Commonly
known as F.I.R is first and foremost important step to set the criminal law in
motion. Though the term F.I.R is nowhere mentioned in the code of criminal
procedure but information given under Section 154 of Cr.pc is popularly known
as F.I.R.
Provision of section
154 makes possible that any person aware of the commission of any cognizable
offence may give information to the police and may, thereby set the criminal
law in motion. Such information is to be given to the officer –in –charge of
the police station having jurisdiction to investigate the offence. The
information so received shall be recorded in such form and manner as under
provided in Section 154.This section is intended to ensure the making of an
accurate record of the information given to the police.
An analysis of S.154 brings out the following points:
(1)The information is to be given
to an officer in charge of a police station having jurisdiction for investigating
the case [S.154 (1)].
(2)If the information is given
orally to such officer, it shall be reduced to writing by the officer himself
or under his direction [s.154 (1)].
(3)The information .if given in writing,
or if reduced to writing as aforesaid, shall be signed by the Informant [S.154
(1)].
(4)The information as taken down
in writing shall be read over to the Informant [S.154 (1)]].
(5)The substance of the
information is then to be entered by the Police officer in a book kept by him
in the prescribed form [S.154 (1)].
This book is called Station Diary
or General Diary (S.44 of the Police Act.1861).
(6)The informant then shall
forthwith be given a copy of the information as recorded in the aforesaid manner
[S.154 (2)].
Refusal on part of police to register F.I.R.
The principal object of the first
information report from the point of view of the Informant is to set the
criminal law in motion. And the police cannot refuse to register the complaint
nor this power be usurped by the magistrate. This object will be defeated if
the police officer in charge of the police station refuses to record the
information as required by the above stated
provision of S.154(1).
Here S.154(3)
comes into picture which provides that if any person is aggrieved by a refusal
on the part of the police officer in charge of a police station to record the
information ,he may send by post the substance of such information in writing
to the Superintendent of police(S.P) concerned. If the Superintendent is
satisfied that the information discloses the commission of a cognizable
offence, he shall either investigate the case himself or direct an
investigation to be made by a subordinate police officer in the manner provided
by the code. Sub section (3) of S.154 further provides that such subordinate
police officer investigating the offence shall have all the powers of an
officer in charge of police station in relation to that offence.
Important case laws:
It is pertinent to note that
information to have the status of first information report under S.154 must be
information relating to the commission of a cognizable offence and it must not
be vague but definite enough to enable the police to start investigation.
In
State of Haryana v/s Bhajan Lal[,AIR
1992 SC 604] it was held that the condition which is sine qua non for
recording a FIR is that there must be an information and that information must
disclose a cognizable offence .If any information disclosing a cognizable
offence is laid before an officer- in –charge of a police station satisfying
the requirements of section 154(1),the said police officer has no other option
except to enter the substance thereof in the prescribed form that is to say ,to
register a case on the basis of such information.
In the case of
State of U.P v/s R.K.Srivastava
[(1989)4 SCC 59] the Hon’ble
Supreme Court observed that ‘if the allegations made in the FIR are taken
at their face value and accepted in
their entirety do not constitute an offence ;the criminal proceeding instituted
on the basis of such FIR should be quashed.
Where an anonymous telephonic
message did not disclose the commission of a cognizable offence, it was held
that such a telephonic message could not be held as FIR [Tapinder
Singh v/s
State (1970)2 SCC 113].
However it has
been observed by the Rajasthan High Court in case of Tohal Singh v/s
State of Rajasthan,[1989 Cri LJ 1350(Raj HC )]that ,’if the telephonic
message has been given to officer in charge of a police station ,the person
giving the message is an ascertained one or is capable of being ascertained the
information has been reduced into writing as required under S.154 of Cr.Pc and
it is faithful record of such information and the information discloses
commission of a cognizable offence and is not cryptic one or incomplete in
essential details, it would constitute FIR.
It is important to note that
information in respect of cognizable offence must be recorded before the
commencement of investigation, but not otherwise. It was held in case of Lachhman v/s State [1973 CriLJ 1658(HP
HC)] that if oral information relating to the commission of a
cognizable offence is given to the police officer in charge of a police
station, but the same is not recorded and the police officer proceeds to the
scene of the offences and there records statement of witnesses, none of such
statements would amount to FIR because in such a case the real FIR was
unrecorded oral information given to the police by the informant.
However in a
case wherein though the police officer went to the scene hearing rumours but
recorded a statement at the police station ,it was held that in circumstances
of the case that statement could be accepted as FIR.[Pattad Amarappa v/s State of Karnataka, AIR 1989 SC 2004]
A statement
recorded by the police in respect of a cognizable offence can be considered and
used as FIR, if the same is recorded before the commencement of the investigation,
but not otherwise. Simply because the statement was the first one recorded by
the police in point of time, would not make it FIR if such a statement was
recorded after the commencement of the investigation as held in case of S.V.Nadar v/s State of
Mysore[(1980) 1 SCC 479]
The relative importance of
FIR is far greater than that of any other statement recorded by the police
during the course of the investigation. Therefore the question, whether a
statement is FIR or is one made after the FIR assumes importance. Considering
this aspect the Crpc contains adequate safeguards to ensure its accuracy. Thus
S.154 requires the FIR to be recorded verbatim in the very language of the
informant (as far as possible), to be read over and explained to him, and to be
signed by the informant. The section also makes it obligatory that a copy of
the FIR is given to the informant. Section 157 of Crpc further requires the
investigating officer to send the FIR at once to the magistrate taking
cognizance on police report .Hence ,though subsequent interpolations in the FIR
are not unknown, nevertheless the aforesaid provisions to a large extent ensure
the accuracy of the FIR.
Evidentiary Value
The evidentiary value of FIR is
far greater than that of any other statement recorded by the police during the
course of investigation. It is settled principle of law that a FIR is not a
substantive piece of evidence, that is to say, it is not evidence of the facts
which it mentions. However, its importance as conveying the earliest
information regarding the occurrence cannot be doubted.
Though the FIR
is not substantive evidence, it can be used to corroborate the informant under
S.157 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, or to contradict him under S.145 of the
said Act, if the Informant is called as a witness at the time of trial as held
in case of Hasib v/s State of Bihar [(1972)4SCC
773] It may however, become relevant under S.8 of the Evidence Act.
Section 157 of the Evidence Act
runs as follows:
“157.Former statements of witness may be
proved to corroborate later testimony as
to same fact.-In order to corroborate the testimony of a witness, any
former statement made by such witness relating to the same fact, at or about
the time when the fact took place, or before any authority legally competent to
investigate the fact, may be proved.”
The First
Information Report should be lodged with the police at the earliest opportunity
after the occurrence of cognizable offence .The object of insisting upon prompt
lodging of the report to the police is to obtain early information regarding
the circumstances in which crime was committed. Delay in lodging the FIR quite
often gives birth to the suspicion that FIR is result of afterthought,
deliberation and consultation. Undue or unreasonable as well as unexplained
delay of lodging the FIR often gives fatal blow to the prosecution case.
There must be
reasonable explanation of delay in lodging FIR. In a rape case, where the FIR
was lodged ten days after the incident, it was explained that as the honour of the
family of the prosecutrix was involved the members of the family had taken that
time to decide whether to take the matter to the court or not. This explanation
for the delay was held to be reasonable under the circumstances.[Harpal singh v/s State of
H.P,(1981)1SCC560] .Similarly ,in a case where the relatives of the injured
person were anxious to provide immediate medical aid to him, the delay in their
lodging the FIR was considered as well explained.
Though generally
speaking the contents of FIR can be used only to contradict or corroborate the
maker thereof, there may be cases where the contents become relevant and can be
put to some other use also. Omissions of important fact affecting the
probabilities of the case, are relevant under S.11 of the Evidence Act in
judging the veracity of the prosecution case [Ram Kumar Pandey
v/s State
of M.P (1975)3SCC 815]
When the FIR contains an omission
as to an important fact relied upon by the prosecution, the omission is important,
and the court may refuse to consider the evidence of the informant of the fact
as held in case of [Ramjanam Singh
v/s State
of Bihar, AIR 1956 SC 643]
Through
relying on S.145 of the Evidence Act, the FIR can also be used for the cross
examination of the informant and for contradicting him. This section provides:
“S.145.cross examination as to previous statements in writing.-A
witness may be cross-examined as to previous statements made by him in writing
or reduced in 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 the writing can be proved,
be called to those parts of it which are to used for the purpose of
contradicting him.”
Considering
Ss.157 and 145 of the Evidence Act, it is quite obvious that the FIR cannot be
used for the purpose of corroborating or contradicting any witness other than
the one lodging the FIR as held in case of Hasib
v/s State of Bihar,(1972) 4 SCC 773
In certain cases
the FIR can be used under S.32 (1) of the Evidence Act or under S.8 of the
Evidence Act as to the cause of the informant’s death or as a part of the informant’s
conduct.
Conclusion:
The principal object to the FIR
from the point of view of the informant is to set the criminal law in motion
and from the point of view of the investigating authorities is to obtain
information about the alleged criminal activity so as to be able to take
suitable steps to trace and bring to book the guilty.
It does not constitute
substantive evidence. However it can be used as a previous statement for the
purpose of corroboration or contradiction of its maker under section S.157 or
S.145 of the Indian Evidence Act. It can by no means be utilized for
contradicting or discrediting other witnesses.
