Author Name:   YSRAO JUDGE

The basic purpose of filing FIR is to set the criminal law into motion and not to state all the minute details therein. 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 substantive evidence...

F. I. R
( First Information Report )

The basic purpose of filing FIR is to set the criminal law into motion and not to state all the minute details therein. 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 res-gestae 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 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.

- '' 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 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. ''

- 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 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.''

- '' 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 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 case."

- 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."

- 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 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......"

- '' 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 held.''

- 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 crime.''

- '' 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 ''

- 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.''

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

- Omission of details in First and Inquest Report-Effect of-: In the case of Pedda Narayana & Ors. Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh; 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 case''

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

- 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.''

- 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."

- 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 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. "

- '' 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.''

- HELD: 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

- 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 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.''

- In Malkiat Singh vs State of Punjab And Ors; 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 evidence. ...''

- 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 prosecution.

- 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.

- 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 it.''

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

- First information Report is not a substantive or a primary piece of evidence of the truth of its contents.

- 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 witness.

- 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 Act.

- 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.R.

- ''Police duty bound to lodge F.I.R and investigation into cognizable offence- Recording of F.I.R is mandatory.''

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

- 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 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.
*****************
# State of U.P Vs Krishna Mater & Ors, 2010 (2) L.S 42 (SC)
# T.T.Antony Vs. State of Kerala & Ors.
# AIR 1972 SC 679
# Apren Joseph Alias Current Kunjukunju & Ors. Vs.The State Of Kerala; Citations: 1973 AIR, 1 1973 SCR (2) 16
# Munshi Prasad And Others VS State of Bihar; Citations: AIR 2001 SC 3031, 2001 (2) ALD Cri 882
# 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:---
# 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.
# 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
# see also In Vinod G. Asrani v. State of Maharashtra, [2007 (3 ) SCALE 241], and Kari Choudhary v. Sita Devi and Ors.,
# AIR 1983 SC 554; AIR 1987 SC 923
# 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.
# It was observed in '' SESCERREVTIACREYS,, MUI.NPO.R&IRORRISG.ATION & RURAL ENGG. Vs. SAHNGOO RAM ARYA & ANR.; DATE OF JUDGMENT: 07/05/2002''
# Anil Kumar .....Appellant vs State of Punjab.....Respondent ., ;Sanjay Kumar, Dalbir Singh and Ajay Kumar .....Appellants vs. State of Punjab .....Respondent., ; Crl.Appeal No.422-DB of 2005; Ashok Kumar .....Appellant vs. State of Punjab ......Respondent
# 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
# 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
# 1986 (111) Crimes 40
# AIR 1974 SC 1936

Follow the Procedure Below To Submit Your Articles

Submit your Article by using our online form Click here
Note* we only accept Original Articles, we will not accept Articles Already Published in other websites.
For Further Details Contact: editor@legalserviceindia.com

File Your Copyright - Right Now!