Dr SHAKUNTALA MISRA NATIONAL REHABILITATION

UNIVERSITY
Lucknow
Faculty of Law

PROJECT ON
[EVIDENTIARY
VALUE OF FIR]
For
COURSE ON ‘CrPC’

CLASS: B.Com. LL. B (Hons.) 6th Semester

Submitted by
[RAHUL TIWARI]
Academic Session: 2019-20

Under the Supervision of

MR. Bhanu
Pratap Sir
Faculty of Law
Dr. Shakuntala Misra National Rehabilitation University
 TABLE OF CONTENTS

 INTRODUCTION………………………………….,…………………….4
 Evidentiary value of FIR………………………….…5-6
 Exceptions where it can be used as evidentiary
evidence………………………6-7
 Role of dying declaration in FIR…………….8-9
 Remedies available against denial of FIR……………….. 10-11
 Consequences of denial of lodging FIR……………………..11
 Conclusion………………………………………………………….12
 Bibliography……………………………………………………..13
 ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

I would like to express my special thanks of gratitude to my Mr. Bhanu Pratap Singh, who gave
me the golden opportunity to do this wonderful topic of Evidentiary value of FIR, which also
helped me in doing a lot of Research and I came to know about so many new things I am really
thankful to him.

RAHUL TIWARI
 Introduction
To study the various legal aspects of Section 154, Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, and whether
telephonic information comes under the umbrella of the said provision‘ We have, so far,
attempted a detailed and searching analysis on the legal issues with regard to the statutory duty
of an officer-in-charge of a police station in registering the First Information Report and
commencing the investigation thereon as well the principles relating to the exercise of extra-
ordinary and inherent powers of the High Court in quashing either the FIR or the entire criminal
proceedings as the case may be; and bearing in mind the enunciations of law, we have given our
anxious consideration and careful thought to all the related legal issues emerge therewith.
We shall also focus on the evidentiary value of FIR, its validity when it is unreliable and
ingenuine and the legality of mere oral intimation or telephonic information. To begin any
investigation, it is quite obvious that the police need to know that an offence has been
committed. This can be possible if someone approaches the police station and gives the details of
the offence committed. This is often called as the First Information Report (in short, FIR) and
has been contemplated under Section 154 of the Criminal Procedure Code of 1973 (hereinafter
referred to as “Cr.P.C.”). The basic requirements of FIR as per the section are that, in case of a
cognizable offence, if information is given to an officer-in-charge of the police station orally,
then, 1. It shall be reduced to writing by such officer; 2. Such information shall then be read out
to the informant; 3. The signature of the informant shall be received on the written information;
4. And. finally, it shall be entered in the diary \book meant for this purpose, by such officer. 5. A
copy of the report is also to be handed over to the informant under clause (2) of the section.
 Evidentiary Value of FIR

The evidentiary value of FIR is very important than any other statements during the process of
cognizance of any offense or at the time of initiating the investigation about information
recorded as per Section 154 or 155 of CrPC. But at the same time the established principle of law
that FIR cannot be assumed as a substantive piece of evidence and can only be considered as an
important piece of evidence. The reason for which the FIR is regarded as an important piece of
evidence is- because of its nature that it is the first information of the cognizance of any offence,
and it can be of very important nature as it will help in the initiation of investigation about the
offences.

In, Panduang Chandrakant Mhtare V. State of Maharashtra, it was seen that ‘it is fairly well
settled that FIR is not a substantive piece of evidence and it can be used only to impeach the
creditworthiness of the testimony recorded by the maker and it cannot be used for the purpose of
contradicting or discrediting the testimony of other witnesses.

Main reasons why FIR does not have any substantive evidentiary
value

1. Because the statements in the FIR are not made on oath.

2. Because the statements in the FIR are not made during the trial or at the time of proceedings.

3. Because the statements recorded in FIR has no cross-examination in the Court.

4. Because the statements recorded by the police officers are not admissible in court.

The reasons why FIR are treated as an important piece of evidence:

1. For corroborating the statements made by the person who recorded the FIR.

2. For cross-examination of the statements made by the person in the FIR.

3. For refreshing informer’s memory.

4. For impeaching the creditworthiness of the informer.

5. For the purpose of ascertaining the general facts like the identity of accused, witnesses, time
of offenses etc.

Certain exceptions, when an FIR can be used as a substantive piece

of evidence

For the purpose of corroboration and contradiction the information of the

informant- Section 145 of Indian Evidence Act, talks about ‘A witness may be cross-examined
as to previous statements made by him for the purpose of contradicting him’. The scope of
Section 145 is to deal with the methods of contradicting the information of the informer. Under
Section 153(2) of the Evidence Act, a witness may be asked any question for the purpose of
impeaching his impartiality and permits oral statement to be used for contradiction. But the
present Section which is Section 145 of the Indian Evidence Act, only deals with the method of
contradicting previous statements of witness in writing by cross-examination. The rule will apply
where a witness is not a party to the suit and would not apply when a party to the suit is
examining himself as a witness.

Section 145 of Indian Evidence Act has 2 basic principles which are- According to the first part-
a witness may be cross-examined as to the previous statement made by him in writing or is
reduced into writing without showing the writing to him or proving the same. And the second
part is intended to contradict him through cross-examination where the previous statement is in
writing. The main objective of this provision is either to test the memory of witness or to
contradict him by previous statements in writing.

In, Ram Chandra V. State of Haryana, the Supreme Court observed that the contents and
information of the FIR can only be used for the purpose of contradiction & corroboration the
facts stated by the informer or of any other witness.

Section157 of the Evidence Act which talks about- “Procedure for investigation preliminary
inquiry.The FIR is a kind of evidence whose contradictory and creditworthiness values is only
subjected to the person who lodged a FIR or the informer of the offence and the principles laid
down under Section 145, 154(2) and 157 of Indian Evidence Act can’t be used for the purpose of
contradicting and checking the creditworthiness of any other witness other than the person who
is the informer of the offence. And these principles are usually benefiting the accused in way of
contradicting and checking the creditworthiness of the informer.
And it has been held by the Apex Court of India that with regard to FIR there can only be two
possibilities which are- corroborating and contradicting the informer; and hence it is observed
that FIR cannot be considered as a substantive piece of evidence in any manner.

In, Hasib v/s State of Bihar, it was held by the Supreme Court that considering the principles of
Section 157 and 145 of the Indian Evidence Act, it is quite obvious that the FIR can only be used
for the purpose of corroborating or contradicting the informant the one who lodging the FIR.

In, The State of Orissa v. Makund Harijan and another, the Orissa High Court held that FIR
can only be used to corroborate or contradict the maker of FIR. But omissions of certain
important facts, affecting the probabilities of the case, are relevant under Section 11 of the
Evidence Act in judging the veracity of the prosecution case.

If the informant of any certain offence is accused himself, then it cannot be possibly to use the
facts or information of the FIR for the purpose of corroboration or contraction because accused
cannot be a prosecution witness, and he would very rarely offer himself to be a defense witness
under Section 315 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. It is noted that if the F.I.R. is of a
confessional nature, then again it cannot be proved against the accused as such actions are
prohibited by Section 25 of the Evidence Act.

Where confession made to a police officer cannot be used or proved against a person who is
accused of a certain offence. But at the same time if the accused admits his act then the F.I.R. is
admissible as evidence under Section 21 of the Evidence Act. And if the F.I.R. contains not only
the confession of the accused but also relates to several other matters which are relevant to the
trial or the procedure, then the provisions make the latter admissible.

Though the contents of F.I.R. can be used only to contradict or corroborate the informant, still
there may be cases where the contents become relevant and the F.I.R. can be used as a part of the
informant’s conduct under Section 8 and 11 of the Evidence Act.
Statements of information by the informant as dying declaration in
FIR.

The word “Dying Declaration” means any statement is written or verbal of relevant facts made
by a person, who is dead or it is the statement of a person who had died explaining the
circumstances of his death.

The concept of dying declaration was evolved from a legal maxim, ‘nemo mariturus presumuntur
mentri’ i.e. a man will not meet his maker with a lie in his mouth. Although it may sound
impractical but our law has adopted this concept and functions accordingly. Section 32(1)
specifically deals with the concept of dying declaration in respect of a cause of death and it is
assumed that such statements are relevant even whether the person who made them was not at
the time when they were made.

In Uka Ram v. State of Rajasthan, the Apex Court defined dying declaration in a way that,
“when a statement is made by a person in the threat of his death or as to any circumstances
which cause threat or results into his death, and when the cause of his death comes in question
the statements made by him are admissible as evidence, such statement in law are
compendiously called dying declaration.”

The Supreme Court in deciding P.V. Radhakrishna v. State of Karnataka held that ‘the
principle on which a dying declaration is admitted in evidence is indicated in the Latin maxim,
‘nemo morturus procsumitur mentri’, which means that a man will not meet his maker with a lie
in his mouth. Information lodged by a person who died subsequently relating to the cause of his
death is admissible in evidence under this clause.

In K.R. Reddy v. Public Prosecutor, the evidentiary value of dying declaration was observed
as:-

“The dying declaration is admissible under Section 32 & because the statement not made on oath
so that its truth could be tested by cross-examination, the court has to observe the closest
inspection of the statement before acting upon it. And it is also assumed that the words of a
dying man are of very serious nature because a person on the verge of death is not likely to tell
lies or to connect a case to a malice prosecution of an innocent person. Once the court is satisfied
that the dying declaration is true & voluntary and are not influenced, then the statements can be
sufficient to prove the conviction even without further corroboration.”
The evidentiary value of FIR in the circumstances of dying declaration comes from the concept
that- A dying declaration can also be recorded by public servants, or by a doctor as well, where
the victim is hospitalized and is badly burnt or injured and wants to make a statement, the doctor
can also record the same and make a note of that statement. Although, it is advisable that the
dying declaration should be made to the magistrate itself or in the presence of magistrate but if
there is a condition where no such possibility is seen then the dying declaration can also be
recorded by the police officers, although the court discourages such declaration to the police
officer but if the condition and circumstances are of such a nature that no other possibilities are
seen, then the dying declarations written by the police officers are also considered by the courts.

In Kapoor Singh V. Emperor. The court observed that the FIR lodged by the deceased person
can be admissible as a piece of evidence in the court if the FIR is relating and explaining the
circumstances of his death. Also in the case of Sukhar V. State of UP, it was observed that if the
dying declaration in the FIR is not sufficient to ascertain the facts and reasons for the cause of his
death, even though the FIR has enough information related to the accused and details of the
incident. Then the information cannot be considered as dying declaration.

In the case of Maniram V. State of Madhya Pradesh, the dying declaration was recorded by
the doctor but the doctor did not attest the consciousness report of the deceased and also there
was no thumb signature on the dying declaration, in that case, the FIR has lost its credibility and
it was difficult to rely on the dying declaration.
Remedies available against Such Refusal to Lodge FIR

There are various remedies available against such law enforcement agencies who deny lodging
First Information Reports in connection to a crime. A writ petition in the nature of mandamus
may be filed before respective High Court against such law enforcement agencies, inter alai, to
register the FIR and also directing him to show cause the reasons for not filing.. In the famous
Lalita Kumari Case it was held by the apex court that police must register FIR if the information
discloses a cognizable offence. A contempt petition can also be filed before the High Court
against the officer who refused to register the matter as FIR. The point of jurisdiction as a ground
for refusal may attract imprisonment for the police officials for one year.

Consequences on Denial to Lodge First Information Report

Sometimes it is very common to hear that the police authorities refusing to lodge first
information report on the basis of the information given by informant and as such it makes a bit
tough for the person to take the appropriate resort. Technology has developed over years with
lodging of FIR by means of email and other electronic mechanisms in relation to cases of cyber
related crimes involving Facebook related issues, sending of offensive messages, but still India is
a country comprising majority of illiterate and lay persons who are not aware of all this first
mechanisms and thus are the victims of the consequences.

This persons being unaware of the facts revolve round the police stations to seek the justice but
keeping in mind the ultimate resort which can give justice is the judiciary. It is not possible
always to hire the best legal brain for filing a complaint before the magistrate because this
requires huge amount of expenses for filing a complaint, court fees and the expenses to be
incurred for the advocates per date wise thus it becomes a huge controversial issue and similarly
on the other hand the system of free legal aid services are very much inoperative and justice is
thus deprived for those particular sections of the society.

However getting back towards the practical discussion denial by the police to take a matter as
FIR may be the result of various reasons as it is heard that investigation officers demanding huge
sum for taking up a matter as FIR, inducing by wrong promises that in the event if the sum is not
paid then false charges may be filed in the charge sheet.

However be it mentioned here that section 154(3) of the criminal procedure code[13]is
sometimes felt like useless provisions as the superintendent of police does not look in to the
matter which is denied by the police authorities subordinate to him, neither the information
reaches to him nor he investigates it and as such it is fruitless but the information sent to the
superintendent of police via registered acknowledgment due is a valuable piece of evidence to
lodge a petition before the nearest judicial magistrates under section 156(3) criminal procedure
code to treat the complaint/information as FIR and also directing the same police officials to take
up the matter as FIR as expedient as possible but still it is felt that it is sarcastic that how the
informant/victim is harassed not only by delay of time but also the mental agony which has been
suffered in the due course of time. However being a legal thinker I feel that this latches should be
covered up by some stringent laws so that such victim would get the right platform at the first
instance to make a way out.

Once the FIR is registered a police case number is incorporated which is the first mode to start an
investigation in relation to cognizable and non-cognizable offences and it is a mandate under the
criminal procedure code to prepare a pre-investigation report within twenty four hours from the
time of registering FIR. If the accused is arrested then such accused shall be produced before the
nearest judicial magistrate within that period

However certain limitations to the powers of the police officials has also been incorporated under
the criminal procedure code by virtue of section 41A crpc regarding issuance of notice to the
accused person directing the person against whom a reasonable complaint has been lodged or
any suspicion exist, this serving of notice has been made mandatory in the event if the police
thinks that the arrest is not imminent and expedient in connection to the alleged complaint, this
gives a opportunity to the accused to cooperate with the investigation agencies. It is also
important to mention that the procedure of arrest and duties of the police officials while making
the arrest are exclusively stipulated under section 41B crpc and non-compliance of the said
provisions by the police officials may attract show cause by the concerned court, the duties
related to the arresting a female has also been strictly adhered under the procedure code to be
conducted by a female police official within the time limit mentioned.

A memorandum of arrest shall also be prepared by the police officials to conduct the arrest and
the rights of the accused shall also be forthwith informed by the police officials which is a
fundamental principle of natural justice to ensure that free and fair trial in criminal courts. In
Niranjan Singh v state of U.P it has been held that investigation is just a key which gives birth
to the rest of the stages of the criminal proceedings. In State of Bihar vs J.A.C Saldanha it was
held by the court that the investigation powers is the sole field exclusively reserved for the
executive in the police department.
 Conclusion
The Police officials are required to discharge their duties diligently as per the police manuals and
regulations governed by the respective state governments. Misuse of power by the police
officials will not only soften the dignity and respect of the police departments but also may
corrupt the entire administrative and judiciary functions beside society will thereby also lose
faith and reliance on the enforcement agencies. As society keeps reliance on the police
departments as a means of first instrument for initiation of criminal proceedings if they diligently
perform their duties then it may lead to proper set up of a criminal motion by arresting the
violators who actually infringe the law and by punishing them for a means of transformation.

After assuring the provision it can be assumed that the FIR is a necessary report and if timely
recorded, provides valuable evidence. Now it can easily be considered as an important and a
valuable piece of evidence in any trial either for the purpose of corroborating evidence or for
contrary witnesses, Therefore, it becomes imperative that such report to be recorded in all
circumstances and it is the duty of the police officer to initiate the investigation as soon as the
information is received. In the discussion of the evidentiary value of the FIR, it is also concluded
that the statements recorded by the police officers are not admissible in the court of justice and
hence the ascertainment of the facts by the police officer’s also comes under the umbrella of
important piece of evidence but not a substantive piece of evidence. FIR can sometimes also be
considered as Substantial Evidence but in most of the cases it ends up having a just value of an
important piece of evidence. Hence we can assume that FIR is an important and a circumstantial
piece of evidence.
 BIBLIOGRAPHY

Books

 Criminal Procedure Code, (Students Edition) Supindar Kaur

 PSA Pillai's Criminal Law: Incorporating the Criminal Law
(Amendment) Act, 2013

Secondary Sources

 https://papers.ssrn.com/
 https://www.researchgate.net/