First Information Report and Its Scope

FIRST INFORMATION REPORT AND ITS

FIRST INFORMATION REPORT AND ITS

SCOPE

SCOPE

INTRODUCTION

INTRODUCTION

FIR is the abbreviated form of the ‘

FIR is the abbreviated form of the ‘First Information ReportFirst Information Report.’.’  The

 The word word FFirst irst Information Information RReport eport has has not not been been dened dened in in thethe Code of

Code of CrimiCriminal Procednal Procedure. It is ure. It is the informathe information which is tion which is iveniven to the police relatin to the commission of a coni!able o"ence to the police relatin to the commission of a coni!able o"ence and

and Section 154Section 154 of the Code provides for the manner in which of the Code provides for the manner in which such information is to be recorded. The principal ob#ect of the such information is to be recorded. The principal ob#ect of the FIR is to set the criminal law in motion. Coni!able o"ence FIR is to set the criminal law in motion. Coni!able o"ence means the o"ence in which the Police ma$ arrest a person means the o"ence in which the Police ma$ arrest a person without a warrant. The$ are authori!ed to start investiation without a warrant. The$ are authori!ed to start investiation su

suo o mmotottto o inintto o coconni!i!abable le cacaseses s aand nd do do nonot t rre%e%uiuirre e anan$$ investiations from the Court as re%uired in non& coni!able investiations from the Court as re%uired in non& coni!able o"ences.

o"ences.11_{F.I.R is a ver$ valuable document. It is of utmost lealF.I.R is a ver$ valuable document. It is of utmost leal}

importance' both from the point of view of the prosecution and importance' both from the point of view of the prosecution and the defenc

the defence. It e. It conconstistituttutes es thethe foufounanatiotionn of the case in theof the case in the 

rrsst t iinnssttaanncce e aannd d wwhhoolle e oof f tthhe e ccasase e iis s bbuiuillt t oon n itit. . IIf f tthhee foundation is wea(' the prosecution case will tumble down.

foundation is wea(' the prosecution case will tumble down.



 Mu!tMu!tip!ip!e e FIRFIR& & mumultltipliple e FIFIR R is is ththe e sitsituatuatioion n in in whwhicich h inin

rresespepect ct of of tthe he sasamme e o"o"enence ce seseveveraral l FIFIRs Rs hahave ve bebeenen loded.

loded.



 CrCrososs s FIFIRR& when such FIR is loded in the same case b$& when such FIR is loded in the same case b$

the opposite part$. the opposite part$.



 Anti Anti Time Time FIRFIR& & IIt t iis s tthhe e FFIIR R aafftter er a a lloon n ddelelaa$ $ oof f 

occurrence of the event' but cannot be anti timed occurrence of the event' but cannot be anti timed



 "e"ero ro FIFIRR& whenever a police o)cer in chare lodes an& whenever a police o)cer in chare lodes an

FIR but that police station does not have #urisdiction to FIR but that police station does not have #urisdiction to

1 R.*. +el(ar' Criminal Procedure' P. ,o. 1-. 1 R.*. +el(ar' Criminal Procedure' P. ,o. 1-.

-investiate' such an FIR ultimatel$ is transferred to the investiate' such an FIR ultimatel$ is transferred to the police station havin #urisdiction.

police station havin #urisdiction.

Section 154 of t#e Coe reas as fo!!o$s% Section 154 of t#e Coe reas as fo!!o$s%

Information in coni!able cases/& 01 ever$ information relatin Information in coni!able cases/& 01 ever$ information relatin to the commission of a coni!able o"ence' if iven orall$ to an to the commission of a coni!able o"ence' if iven orall$ to an o)cer in chare of a police station' shall be reduced to writin o)cer in chare of a police station' shall be reduced to writin b

b$ $ hhiim m oor r uunnddeer r hhiis s ddiirreeccttiioonn' ' aannd d bbe e rreeaad d oovveer r tto o tthhee informant2 and ever$ such information' whether iven in writin informant2 and ever$ such information' whether iven in writin or

or rrededucuced ed to to wrwrititinin  as as afafororesesaiaid' d' shshalall l be be sisinned ed b$ b$ ththee person ivin it' and the substance thereof shall be entered in a person ivin it' and the substance thereof shall be entered in a boo( to be (ept b$ such o)cer in such form as the 3tate boo( to be (ept b$ such o)cer in such form as the 3tate 4overnment ma$ prescribe in

4overnment ma$ prescribe in this behalf.this behalf.

0- 5 cop$ of information as recorded under sub& section 01 0- 5 cop$ of information as recorded under sub& section 01 shall be iven forthwith' free of cost' to the informant.

shall be iven forthwith' free of cost' to the informant. 06 an$ per

06 an$ person arison arieved b$ a reved b$ a refusal on thefusal on the e part of an o)part of an o)cercer in chare of a police station to record the information referred in chare of a police station to record the information referred tto o iin n ssuubb& & sseeccttiioonn0011  mmaa$ $ sseennd d tthhe e ssuubbssttaanncce e oof f ssuucchh information' in writin and b$ post' to the 3uperintendent of  information' in writin and b$ post' to the 3uperintendent of  P

Pololicice e coconcncerernened d wwhoho' ' if if sasatitissed ed tthahat t susuch ch ininfoforrmmatatioionn discloses the commission of a coni!able o"ence' shall either discloses the commission of a coni!able o"ence' shall either investiate the case himself or direct an investiation to be investiate the case himself or direct an investiation to be made b$ an$ police o)cer subordinate to him' in the manner made b$ an$ police o)cer subordinate to him' in the manner pr

provovidided ed b$ b$ ththis is CoCodede' ' anand d susuch ch o)o)cecer r shshalall l hahave ve alall l ththee powers of an o)cer in chare of the police station in relation to powers of an o)cer in chare of the police station in relation to that of the o"ence.

that of the o"ence. -

-O&'ECT OF FIR

O&'ECT OF FIR

 The

 The principal principal ob#ect ob#ect of of the the rst rst information information report report from from thethe point of view of the informant is to set the criminal law in point of view of the informant is to set the criminal law in m

moottiioon n aannd d ffrroom m tthe he ppooinint t oof f vvieiew w oof f tthhe e ininvveessttiiaattiinn authorities is to obtain information about the alleed criminal authorities is to obtain information about the alleed criminal

- 3ection 178 of

activit$ so as to be able to ta(e suitable steps to trace and brin to boo( the uilt$.6

 To set the law in motion FIR is loded with a view to settin the investiative process in motion and not for the purpose of  settin down on paper all (nown facts and circumstances about the incident.8 _{It does not constitute substantive evidence it can'}

however' be used as a previous statement for the purpose of  corroboration or contradiction of its ma(er under 3ection 17 or 3ection 187 of the Indian :vidence 5ct. It can be no means be utili!ed or discreditin other witnesses. FIR is not a condition precedent for settin up the criminal law in motion. The statement of the wife of the deceased was ta(en as an FIR in the case.7

SCOPE AND APP(ICATION

;uch importance attaches to the rst statement of a person who lodes an information in the thana about the commission of a crime as it is the oriinal stor$ of the occurrence iven enerall$ at the earliest opportunit$ without much time left for embellishment or fabrication. This section provides for the prompt and proper record of the information. It en#oins the police o)cer in chare to observe certain duties and formalities for the record of the rst information. The conditions relatin to the record of rst information are/

1 It must be an information 0not vaue but denite enouh to enable the police to start investiation relatin to the commission of a coni!able o"ence. Information must relate to the commission of a coni!able o"ence' on the

6 Rattanlal and <hira#lal' The code of criminal Procedure' P. ,o. 88. 8 3tate of =rissa v. <ilip +umar Chand' 19> Cr?@ 1-8- 0=ri&<A.

8

face of it' not merel$ in the liht of subse%uent circumstances.B

- It must be an information iven to the o)cer in chare of  a Police 3tation 0who is empowered b$ 3ection 178 to record an FIR 2 or some other Police =)cer 0e..' an o)cer of the 5nti& Corruption Police' who is' b$ 3tatute' iven the status of an o)cer&in&chare of a Police 3tation' or the 3uperintendent of Police who is authorised b$ sub& section 06.

6 It must be the earliest report relatin to the commission of  such o"ence made to a Police =)cer' with a view to his ta(in action in the manner' after recordin it in writin for that purpose.

here' in 3oma Ahai v. 3tate of 4u#arat' _{on receipt of a}

report reardin the occurrence' the 5.3.I. souht instructions on the phone from the ;ain Police 3tation' before reducin it in writin' it was the report which was reduced to writin thouh a little later in point of time' rather than the telephonic messae' which constituted the FIR.

8 It must be reduced in writin' sined b$ the informant

)ence* a cr+ptic an anon+mous ora! messa,e con-e+e t#rou,# te!ep#one cannot .e treate as FIR* e-en t#ou,# it $as /rst in point of  time0

It has' however' been observed b$ the Ra#asthan Dih Court in Te#a! Sin,# -0 State of Ra2ast#an3 _{that /}

If the telephonic messae has been iven to o)cer in chare of a Police 3tation' the person ivin the messae is an ascertained one or is capable of bein ascertained

B ;animohon v. :mp.' 5IR 1961 Cal 87.  0197 8 3CC -72 5IR 197 3C 1876.

> Tapinder v. 3tate of Pun#ab' 5IR 19E 3C 17BB. 9' 19>9 Cr?@ 167E0Ra#.

the information has been reduced into writin as re%uired under 3ection 178 Cr.P.C and it is a faithful record of such information and the information discloses commission of a coni!able o"ence and is not cr$ptic one or incomplete in essential details' it would constitute FIR.1E

7 It is an information on the basis of which the investiation is commenced& as distinuished from an information received b$ the Police after the commencement of the investiation' which is covered b$ 3ections 1B1&1B- of the Code' and does not constitute FIR' even thouh the ma(er of such subse%uent statement ma$ be the informant of  the FIR himself.11

B It must not be vaue or indenite.

 In the nal stae of the substance of the information must be entered in a prescribed boo(.

First information of the commission or in what circumstances it was committed or who committed it is not essential. The ob#ect behind the investiation is to ascertain these matters. hether information is under 3. 178 is a matter of law2 it is not open to the station o)cer to treat it as such or not accordin to his discretion.

In (a!ita umari -0 o-ernment of U0P016 _{' it has been held}

b$ ve member bench that the provisions of 3ection 17801 is mandator$ and the o)cer concerned is dut$ bound to reister the case on the basis of information disclosin commission of  coni!able o"ence. In simple words' it is a mandator$ provision. Dowever' if no coni!able o"ence is made out in the information iven' then the FIR need not be reistered immediatel$ and the police ma$ conduct a preliminar$ verication for the limited purpose of ascertainin as to

1E +el(ar 1-9

11 3at +umar v. 3tate of Dar$ana' 5IR 198 3C -98. 1- 0-E18 - 3CC 1.

B

whether a coni!able o"ence has been committed. The Court has mentioned some such areas as matrimonial famil$ disputes' medical nelience cases' etc. but then also a safeuard is provided that within seven da$s the preliminar$ in%uir$ has to be conducted and the informant has to be informed whether the FIR is to be reistered or not and if not it has to be supported b$ reasons.

 The obliation to reister FIR has several advantaes  it is the rst step to Gaccess to #usticeH for a victim' it upholds the rule of law' it facilitates swift investiation' it avoids manipulation in criminal cases in several wa$s.16

Cr+ptic messa,e not terme as FIR

In ris#na umar -0 State of Uttar Praes#*14  _3upreme

Court held that in order for a messae of communication to be %ualied to be FIR' there must be somethin in the nature of a complaint or accusation or at least some information of the crime iven with the ob#ect of settin the police or criminal law in motion. It is true that a FIR need not contain the minutest details as to how the o"ence had ta(en place nor it is re%uired to contain the names of the o"enders or witnesses. Aut it must at least contain some information about the crime committed as also some information about the manner in which the coni!able o"ence has been committed. 5 cr$ptic messae recordin an occurrence cannot be termed as FIR.

PROCEDURE OF RECORDIN OF F0I0R

5n$ person can ive information to the police relatin to the commission of a coni!able o"ence' and 3ection 178 of the Code provides for the manner in which such information is to be recorded. The procedure of recordin FIR can be drawn out from 3ection 178 of the Code' Police Rules 5ct 0Police Rules 5ct'

16 3upra 1' P. 1->. 18 5IR -E1E 3C --78.

1968 for Pun#ab and Rules of Criminal Practice framed b$ the concerned Dih Court. 5n anal$sis of 3ection 178 brins out the followin points/

  The information is to be iven to an o)cer in chare of a

police station havin #urisdiction for investiatin the case.

 If the information is iven orall$ to such o)cer' it shall be

reduced to writin b$ the o)cer himself or under his direction.

  The information' if iven in writin' or if reduced to writin

as aforesaid' shall be sined b$ the informant.

  The information as ta(en down in writin shall be read

over to the informant.

  The substance of the information is then to be entered b$

the police o)cer in a boo( (ept b$ him in the prescribed form. This boo( is called 3tation <iar$' 4eneral <iar$ or Ro! ,amchara. 0Police 5ct' 1>B1.

  The informant shall then forthwith be iven a cop$ of the

information as recorded in the aforesaid manner.

7)AT S)OU(D T)E F0I0R0 CONTAIN

F.I.R. is the bac(&bone of the criminal investiation. It is the ver$ basis upon which the investiation could be conducted and speed$ and fair #ustice could be ensured. It is therefore' essential that the followin points should be mentioned in the F.I.R. in a clear terminolo$ without an$ ambiuit$.

 ,ame and 5ddress of the complaint2

 <ate' Time and ?ocation of the incident which is bein

reported2

  The true facts of the incident as the$ occurred2  ,ames and descriptions of the persons involved2  itnesses if an$.

Aut it is not mandator$ that all these points should be satised as it is not essential that the informant has to be aware of the

>

particulars of the accused and the victim. hat is of utmost importance is that the informant’s information on the ver$ face of it should disclose the commission of a coni!able o"ence.

REDUCED TO 7RITIN AND SINED

5 careful and accurate record of the rst information has alwa$s been considered as a matter of the hihest importance b$ the Courts in India. Aut the conditions as to writin are merel$ procedural. If there is information of a coni!able o"ence it is within the scope of 3ection 178 even if the police o)cer has nelected to record it in accordance with the law. 05.. +han v. 3tate' 5IR 19B- Cal B81.

In State of A0P0 -0 Punati Ramu!u'17 _{where the constable at}

the police station refused to record the complaint on the round of lac( of territorial #urisdiction over the place of crime' it was held that it was certainl$ a dereliction of dut$ on the part of the constable because an$ lac( of territorial #urisdiction could not have prevented him from recordin information about commission of a coni!able o"ence and forwardin the same to the police station havin #urisdiction over the area. 5bsence of  sinature on FIR will also not nullif$ the FIR. Failure to observe the procedure does not automaticall$ render the FIR invalid' it merel$ renders it di)cult to prove.1B

In urpreet Sin,# -0 State of Pun2a.18  _{it was said b$ the}

Court that under 3ection 178 as well as R. -8.1 of the Pun#ab Civil 3ervice Rules 1968' *olume III what is re%uired to be mentioned in the dail$ diar$ is substance of the information received and same cannot be said to be repositor$ of 

17 5IR 1996 3C -B88.

1B ;ir Rahman' 5IR 1967 Pesh 1B7.

ever$thin. If the name of the witnesses had not been mentioned' it cannot be said that substance of information received was not entered and there was violation of 3ection 178 read with the above mentioned rules.

 Thus 3ection 178 re%uires that FIR to be recorded in the lanuae familiar to the informant 0as far as possible. The idea behind readin over the information and reduced to writin and obtainin sinatures of the rst informant thereon are intended to ensure that what has been reduced into writin is a true and faithful version of the information iven to the o)ce in chare of the police station. This 3ection also provides that the cop$ of  FIR has to be iven to the informant. hile interpretin this 3ection' the 3upreme Court in State -0 N0S0 nanes$aran1

cateoricall$ held that non&suppl$ of the cop$ of FIR under 3ection 1780- Cr.P.C ma$ not vitiate the trial in ever$ case. The Court also pointed out that procedure followed b$ CAI in not directl$ reisterin the FIR on receipt of information is proper inasmuch as the CAI in such cases has to conduct a preliminar$ in%uir$ after reisterin the information in the Reister concerned. Dere the accused is not at all pre#udiced in the procedure followed b$ CAI in cases involvin economic o"ences as eempted in the decision in (a!ita umari -0 o-ernment of U0P013

 The mere fact that the FIR was scribed b$ another person and sined b$ the victim as rievousl$ in#ured' he was admitted in the hospital and havin treatment as in&patient' would not lead the Court to hold that the informant had not loded FIR.-E

1> 0-E16 6 3CC 798/ 0-E16 6 3CC 0Cri -67. 19 0-E18 - 3CC I.

1E

T)E SU&STANCE T)EREOF S)A(( &E ENTERED IN

A &OO 

=nl$ the substance of the information relatin to the commission of a coni!able o"ence is to be entered in a boo( to be (ept at ever$ police station in such form as the 3tate 4overnment ma$ prescribe. This boo( is (nown as 4eneral <iar$' 3tation <iar$ or 3tation Douse Reister.

 The ;aistrate of the district is at libert$ to call for and inspect such diar$.

 Therefore' it can be inferred that FIR need not be an enc$clopedia of thins' the onl$ thin that is re%uired that it should be authentic.

INFORMATION &9 I((ITERATE :I((AER*

PARDANAS)IN 7OMAN

here an informant bein an illiterate villaer admitted that he could not et all the facts deposed in the Court written in FIR' it could not be viewed with suspicion.-1 _{hen the informant is an}

illiterate villaer' the time of occurrence stated b$ him could not be epected to be accurate. here FIR loded b$ pardanashin illiterate woman' mentioned onl$ the name of  some members of mob' no conclusion can be drawn that those who were not named' were not members of the mob.

--REMED9 ON REFUSA( TO REISTER F0I0R0

If a person has a rievance that his FIR has not been reistered b$ the police station his rst remed$ is to approach the

-1 5ttepalli 4opaiah v. 3tate of 5.P.' 19> Cr?@ 9>. -- Ram Aali Than(u v. 3tate of Aihar' 19>> Cr?@ B8.

3uperintendent of Police under 3ection 17806' Cr.P.C or other police o)cer referred to in 3ection 6B of this Code. If the 3uperintendent of Police is satised that the information discloses the commission of a coni!able o"ence' he shall either investiate the case himself or direct an investiation to be made b$ a subordinate police o)cer in the manner provided b$ the Code. It further provides that such subordinate police o)cer investiatin the o"ence shall have all the powers of an o)cer in chare of police station in relation to that o"ence.

5nd if his rievance still persists' then he can approach a ;aistrate under 3ection 17806 instead of runnin to the Dih Court b$ wa$ of writ petition or a petition under 3ection 8>- of  the Code. hen the petitioners have ot alternative remed$' the$ cannot invo(e the etra&ordinar$ #urisdiction.-6

T7O FIRs IN RESPECT OF SAME INCIDENT

 The leal position is that there can be no two FIRs aainst the same accused in respect of the same o"ence. Aut if there are revival versions of the incident of two FIRs' then two FIRs are to be recorded and the investiation in respect of those FIRs can be underta(en.-8

Aut the two FIRs on the same incident is not prohibited b$ the code and the police is not #ustied in refusin to record the second FIR. In such a case' the ;aistrate can direct the police to investiate also the second FIR.-7

7)O CAN (ODE FIR

5n$one who (nows about the commission of a coni!able o"ence can le F.I.R. It is not necessar$ that onl$ the victim of 

-6 <ilip <eshmu(h v. 3tate of +arnata(a' -E1E Cr?@ B-E. -8 +ari Chaudhr$ v. 3ita <evi' 5IR -EE- 3C 881.

-7 Jp(ar 3inh v. *ed Pra(ash' 5IR -EE8 3C 86-E/ 0-EE8 16 3CC -9-/ -EE7 3CC 0Cri -11/ -EE8 Cr?@ 8-19.

1-the crime should le an F.I.R. 5n$ police o)cer who comes to (now about the commission of the coni!able o"ence can le an F.I.R. himself or herself. In other words' an$ person can le a F.I.R/&

  5ainst whom the o"ence has been committed2  ho (nows an o"ence has been committed2

 ho has seen the o"ence is bein committed2

 ho has an$ information about the commission of an

o"ence.

Dence' it is evident that FIR can come from an$ %uarter. :ven an anon$mous letter sent reportin a coni!able o"ence ma$ be treated as FIR. It need not be loded b$ the e$e&witness alone and it is not necessar$ that the informant had personal (nowlede of the crime.-B

FIR .+ accuse

hen a person who loded the FIR reardin the occurrence of  murder himself subse%uentl$ becomes the accused of the o"ence and tried and a report loded b$ him is not a confessional rst information report but is an admission b$ him of certain facts which have a bearin on the %uestion to be determined b$ the Court' vi!.' how and b$ whom the murder was committed or whether the statement of the accused in the Court den$in the correctness of certain statement of the prosecution witnesses is correct or not the FIR is admissible to prove aainst him as admissions which are relevant under 3ection -1 of the :vidence 5ct.-

E:IDENTAR9 :A(UE OF F0I0R0

-B 3 C 3ar(ar / The ?aw of Criminal Procedure 05llahabad law aenc$ p. >>E. - Faddi v. 3tate of ;.P.' 5IR 19B8 3C 3C 1>7E.

5 FIR means the information' b$ whomsoever iven' to the o)cer in chare of a police station in relation to the commission of a coni!able o"ence and which is rst in point of  time and on the strenth of which the investiation into that o"ence is commenced.->

It is settled ?aw that FIR is not substantive evidence' that is to sa$' it is not evidence of facts which it mentions. Dowever' its importance as conve$in the earliest information reardin the occurrence cannot be doubted.-9

 Thouh it not bein a substantive evidence' it can be used to corroborate the informant under 3ection 17 of the :vidence 5ct' 1>-' or to contradict him under 3ection 187 of the 5ct' if  the informant is called as a witness at the time of trial.6E _{It ma$}

however' become relevant under 3ection >' :vidence 5ct. 3ection 17 of the :vidence 5ct is as follows/&

In order to corroborate the testimon$ of a witness' an$ former statement made b$ such witness relatin to the same fact' at or about the time when the fact too( place' or before an$ other authorit$ leall$ competent to investiate the fact' ma$ be proved.61

It was held in Panuran, C#anra;ant M#atre -0 State of  Ma#aras#tra*<6 _{that it is fairl$ well settled that rst}

information report is not a substantive piece of evidence and it can be used onl$ to discredit the testimon$ of the ma(er

-> 3tate of Aomba$ v. Rus$ ;istr$' 19BE Cr?@ 76-. -9 3(. Dasib v. 3tate of Aihar' 019- 8 3CC 6.

6E 5hnoo ,aesia v. 3tate of Aihar' 19BBCr?@ 1EE' 1E6.

61 oodro"e/ Commentaries on Code of Criminal Procedure' p. 76. 6- 019>B 8 3CC 86B/ 19>B 3CC 0Cri7EE/ 19>B Cr?@ 197.

18

thereof and it cannot be utili!ed for contradictin or discreditin the testimon$ other witnesses.

 The FIR should be loded with the police at the earliest opportunit$ after the occurrence of the report to the police is to obtain earl$ information reardin the circumstances in which the crime was committed. <ela$ in lodin the FIR %uite often results in embellishment which is a creature of afterthouht and on account of dela$' the report not onl$ ets bereft of the advantae of spontaneit$' but daner creeps in of the introduction of colored version' eaerated account or concocted stor$ as a result of deliberation and consultation and for these reasons' it is essential that dela$ in lodin the FIR should satisfactoril$ be eplained.66  _{The FIR will have better}

corroborative value if it is recorded before there is time and opportunit$ to embellish or before the informant’s memor$ fails. Jndue or unreasonable dela$ in lodin the FIR therefore' inevitabl$ ives rise to suspicion which puts the court on uard to loo( for the possible motive and the eplanation and consider its e"ect on the trustworthiness or otherwise of the prosecution version. In a rape case' where the FIR was loded 1E da$s after the incident' it was eplained that as the honor of  the famil$ of the prosecutri was involved the members of the famil$ had ta(en that time to decide whether to ta(e the matter to the Court or not. This eplanation for the dela$ was held to be reasonable under these circumstances.

FIR can onl$ be used for certain purposes onl$ as settled b$ numerous decisions/

  To corroborate or contradict the mar(er thereof 03ections

178 and 17 of the :vidence 5ct' if the ma(er is eamined as a witness.

  To impeach the credit of the ma(er' if eamined as a

witness 03etion 177 of the :vidence 5ct.

  To show that the implication of the accused was not an

afterthouht.

  To use it as evidence as to the informers conduct under

3ection >.

 hen the information was iven b$ the accused himself'

the FIR can be used aainst him as evidence of his conduct 03.>' :vidence 5ct2 or as an admission0 3.-1' :vidence 5ct' provided it is a non&confessional statement& apart from the uses under 3ections 187 and 17 where the accused is eamined as a witness.

o Aut such FIR made b$ one accused cannot be used as

evidence aainst the other accused or to contradict an$ other witness.

o If an$ part of the statement of the accused is

confessional' no part of it can be used aainst him as evidence and the doctrine of severabilit$ cannot be invo(ed.

5n FIR loded b$ the accused cannot be used aainst him for an$ other purpose' i.e., to show his motive for the o"ence.

 If the informant dies' and the FIR contains a statement as

to the cause of his death' or the circumstances resultin in his death' it ma$ be used as substantive evidence as to the cause of his death' under 3ection 6-01 of the :vidence 5ct.

 hen the FIR is promptl$ loded' it is reliable and where it

is supported b$ evidence' the plea that the accused person is falsel$ implicated is to be re#ected.

Moreo-er FIR can e-en .ecome su.stantia! e-ience in t#e fo!!o$in, circumstances%=

 <urin declaration when a person deposin about the

cause of his death had died 0that is' a d$in declaration. In such cases FIR will become admissible under 3ection 6-01 of the Indian :vidence 5ct' 1>-.

 In the in#uries are bein caused in the presence of 3tation

1B

 hen the informer who has written the FIR or read it' fails

to recall memor$ those facts but is' sure that the facts were correctl$ represented in FIR at the time he wrote it or read it.

DE(A9 IN F0I0R0

It is well settled that the dela$ in ivin the FIR b$ itself cannot be a round to doubt the prosecution case. +nowin the Indian conditions as the$ are' it is not wise to epect from villaers that the$ would rush to the police station immediatel$ after the occurrence. Duman nature as it is' the (ith and (in who have witnessed the occurrence cannot be epected to act mechanicall$ with all the promptitude in ivin the report to the police. 5t times bein rief&stric(en because of the calamit$ it ma$ not immediatel$ occur to them that the$ should ive a report. 5fter all it is bit natural in these circumstances for them to ta(e some time to o to the police station for ivin the report. Jnless there are indications of fabrication' the Court cannot re#ect the prosecution version as iven in the FIR and later substantiated b$ the evidence merel$ on the round of  dela$.68_{In view of the series of clashes which too( place on that}

da$' it could not be held that there was undue and uneplained dela$ in ivin the FIR.

In the case of Amar Sin,# -0 &a!$iner Sin,#'67  _their

?ordships of the 3upreme Court held& GThere is no hard and fast rule that an$ dela$ in lodin the FIR would automaticall$ render the prosecution case doubtful. It necessaril$ depends upon facts and circumstances of each case whether there has been an$ such dela$ in lodin the FIR which ma$ cast doubt about the veracit$ of the prosecution case and for this a bost of  circumstances li(e the condition of the rst informant' the

68 *idh$aharan v. 3tate of +erala' 0-EE8 1 3CC -172 Tara 3inh v. 3tate of Pun#ab' 5IR 1991 3C B6.

nature of in#uries sustained' the number of victims' the e"orts made to provide medical aid to them' the distance of the hospital and the police station etc. have to be ta(en into consideration. There is no mathematical formula b$ which an inference ma$ be drawn either wa$ merel$ on account of dela$ in lodin of the FIRH.

?aw has not ed an$ time for lin FIR' as such a dela$ed FIR is not illeal. 5 mere dela$ in lodin of FIR cannot be a round b$ itself for throwin the entire prosecution case abroad. The Court has to see( an eplanation for dela$ and test the truthfulness and plausibilit$ of the reason assined. If the dela$ is eplained to the satisfaction of the Court' it cannot be counted aainst the prosecution. here e$e&witnesses are reliable and trustworth$' mere dela$ in lin FIR would be no round to discard the entire prosecution case. ;ere dela$ in lodin the FIR would not be fatal in the case where substantive evidence of P3 reardin the involvement of the accused persons in the commission of the crime is otherwise reliable and convincin.

In State of Pun2a. -0 arnai! Sin,#'6B _{where the murder had}

ta(en place durin niht' FIR was led net da$ at 9/6E a.m.' the police station was +ms. 5wa$' the area was terrorist a"ected and terrorism was at its pea( durin that period' FIR was held not a dela$ed action.

Aut uneplained dela$ in lin FIR created doubt about the involvement of other accused person.

In case of State of )imac#a! Praes# -0 S#ree ant S#e;ari'6 _{the 3upreme Court observed/}

G<ela$ per se is not a mitiatin circumstance for the accused when accusations of rape are involved. <ela$ in lodin rst

6B 0-EE6 1 3CC -1/ -EE8 3CC0Cri167/ -EE6 Cr?@ 6>9-03C. 6 0-EE8 > 3CC 176/ 0-EE8 Cri ?@ 8-6-.

1>

information report cannot be used as a ritualistic formula for discardin prosecution case and doubtin its authenticit$. It onl$ puts the Court on uard to search for and consider if an$ eplanation has been o"ered for the dela$. =nce it is o"ered' the Court is to onl$ see whether it is satisfactor$ or not. In a case if the prosecution fails to satisfactor$ eplain the dela$ and there is possibilit$ of embellishment or eaeration in the prosecution version on account of such dela$' it is a relevant factor. =n the other hand satisfactor$ eplanation of the dela$ is weiht$ enouh to re#ect the plea of false implication or vulnerabilit$ of prosecution case.

In Santos# Moo!+a -0 State of arnata;a'6>  _{thouh there}

was dela$ of 8- da$s in lodin the complaint to the police' the prosecution witnesses 0P&1 K P&- in their evidence eplained that all their famil$ members includin themselves were uneducated and there were no male members in their famil$ for their assistance. The witnesses also stated that the accused persons posed threat and' therefore' out of fear the$ did not inform the police. This eplanation of dela$ was accepted b$ the Court.

DE(A9 IN SE>UA( OFFENCES

 The Courts cannot overloo( the fact that in seual o"ences' dela$ in lodin of the FIR can be due to variet$ of reasons particularl$ the reluctance of the prosecutri or her famil$ members to o to the police and complain about the incident which concerns the reputation of the prosecutri and the honor of the famil$. It is onl$ after ivin it a cool thouht on arrival of  the elders in the famil$ that a complaint of seual o"ence is enerall$ loded. In rape cases some dela$ in lodin FIR is natural in a traditionall$ bound societ$ to avoid harassment which is inevitable when the reputation of a woman is concerned. In rape cases the dela$ in lodin FIR where eplained is not to be attached importance. here in a an

rape' no male famil$ member was present' dela$ of 6 da$s was held not to be fatal.

In )arpa! Sin,# - State of )P*<3 _{where the FIR was loded}

1E da$s after the incident. It was eplained that as the honour of the famil$ of the prosecutri was involved the members of  the famil$ had ta(en that time to decide whether to ta(e the matter to the court or not. This eplanation for the dela$ was held to be reasonable under the circumstances

In Ram S$arup -0 State of UP'8E  _{in the present case the}

complainant was a forein national. ,aturall$ after the rape committed on her b$ two persons' she must be in a condition of  shoc( and onl$ when she contacted the Italian :mbass$ and received instructions from there to et loded report with the local police she could do so. The said eplanation was held su)cient and created no doubt in the prosecution stor$.

 Therefore' the FIR will have better corroborative value if it is recorded before there is time and opportunit$ to embellish or before the informantLs memor$ fails. Jndue or unreasonable dela$ in lodin the FIR therefore' inevitabl$ ives rise to suspicion which puts the court on uard to loo( for the possible motive and the eplanation and consider its e"ect on the trustworthiness or otherwise of the prosecution version.

RI)TS OF T)E FIRST INFORMANT

 The informant who lodes FIR with the Police does not fade awa$ with the lodin of the FIR. De is vitall$ interested as to what action is ta(en b$ the police on receipt of the FIR as well as in the subse%uent proceedins to ascertain if an$ o"ence has been committed and if so' what action should be ta(en aainst the o"ender. The Code' therefore' la$s down several provisions to (eep him informed at various staes/

69 019>1 I 3CC 7BE.

-E

 5s soon as the FIR is loded' the informant is entitled to

et an cop$ of the FIR free of cost M3ection 1780-N.

 If the o)cer in chare of the Police 3tation on receipt of 

FIR decides not to investiate the case because it appears to him that there is no su)cient round for enterin on an investiation' the o)cer in chare must notif$ to the informant that he would not investiate the case M3ection 170-N.

 5fter the investiation is complete' the =)cer in chare

shall forward to the ;aistrate his report. 5t this stae he must communicate to the informant the action ta(en b$ him Ms. 160-0iiN' which means that a cop$ of the report made under 3ection 160-0i must be supplied to the informant.81

  The 3upreme Court has further held8- that where the

;aistrate' after considerin the Police Report under 3ection 160-0i' is not inclined to ta(e coni!ance of the o"ence and issue process' or that there is su)cient case for proceedin aainst some of the accused mentioned in the FIR' the ;aistrate should/

 4ive notice to the informant' and

 Provide him an opportunit$ to be heard at the time of 

consideration of the Police report so that the informant ma$ ma(e his submissions to persuade the ;aistrate to ta(e coni!ance of the o"ence.86

INFORMATION AS TO NON=

CONI"A&(E OFFENCES AND

DIFFERENCE &ET7EEN SECTIONS

154 AND 155

81 Ahawant v. Commr.' 5IR 19>7 3C 1->7 0Paras 6&8/ 019>7 -3CC 76/ 19>7 Cr?@ 119.

8- 3upra note 6B.

 hile information in coni!able cases havin been dealt

with section 178 of the Code and information as reards non&coni!able o"ences is dealt b$ 3ection 177 of the Code.

 In coni!able cases the o)cer in chare of the police

station is bound to record the FIR while in case of  information dealin with non&coni!able o"ences' the police shall refer the information to the area ;aistrate and reister an FIR onl$ when he assents to it.

  The police o)cer can start the investiation into the

alleed coni!able o"ence on the basis of the rst information received and recorded b$ him' but the same is not the case with non&coni!able o"ences. 5s per 3ection 177 of Cr.P.C the information received b$ the Police =)cer has to be transmitted to the ;aistrate' whose prior order and permission must be obtained b$ the Police =)cer to start the investiation into the o"ence of a non&coni!able nature.

In Ram ris#na Da!mia -0 State44 _{where information is iven}

to police of a coni!able o"ence and the case is reistered reardin that o"ence' the investiatin o)cer' while investiatin the coni!able o"ence cannot possibl$ be debarred from investiatin an$ subsidiar$ and non&coni!able o"ence which ma$ arise out of the facts' and can also include these latter cases in his main report under 3ection 16.

SECTIONS 154 AND 1?1

-- The FIR is to be distinuished from information received after commencement of the investiation which is covered b$ 3ections

1B1&1B-5 statement of e$e&witnesses recorded b$ a Police =)cer immediatel$ on reachin the scene of occurrence cannot be used as FIR. That would not' however' detract the testimon$ of  the e$e&witnesses which will have to be tested on its own merits.

hen the Investiatin =)cer deliberatel$ did not record the FIR after receipt of information of a coni!able o"ence and recorded the complaint onl$ after oin to the spot and after due deliberation' consultation and discussion' such complaint could not be treated as FIR as it would be a statement made durin investiation and would be hit b$ 3ection 1B- of Cr.P.C.

87

CRIMINA( (A7 @AMENDMENT ACT* 6B1<

 Amendment of Section 154

In 3ection 178 of the Cr.P.C' in sub&section 01' the followin provisos shall be inserted' namel$/&

GProvided that if the information is iven b$ the woman aainst whom an o"ence under 3ections& 6-B5' 6-BA' 678' 6785' 678A' 678C' 678<' 6B' 6B5' 6BA' 6BC' 6B<' 6B:' or 3ection 7E9 of the Indian Penal Code 087 of 1>BE is alleed to have been committed or attempted' then such information shall be recorded b$ a woman police o)cer or an$ woman o)cer/ Provided further that&

a In event that the person aainst whom an o"ence under 3ection 678' section 6785' section 678A' section 678c' 3ection 678<' section 6B' section 6B5' section 6BA' section 6B<' section 6B: or section 7E9 of the Indian

Penal Code 087 of 1>BE is alleed to have been committed or attempted' is temporaril$ or permanentl$ mentall$ or ph$sicall$ disabled' then such information shall be recorded b$ a police o)cer' at the residence of  the person see(in to report such o"ence or at a convenient place of such person’s choice' in the presence of an interpreter or a special educator' as the case ma$ be2

b The recordin of such information shall be video raphed2 c The police o)cer shall et the statement of the person

recorded b$ a #udicial ;aistrate under Clause 0a of 3ub& 3ection 075 of 3ection 1B8 as soon as possible.H

 This provision provides for reistration of FIR on the crime spot or where the victim is present in case of women aainst whom crime has been or tried to be committed under the mentioned 3ections of the Code and in case of ph$sicall$ handicapped also.

-8

CONC(USION

 The principal ob#ect of FIR is to set the criminal law in motion' an$ person who has the information of coni!able o"ence can ive information reardin it and the police o)cer is bound to reister the complaint. FIR is the base upon which fair and speed$ #ustice rests. It upholds the rule of law in India. It is of  much evidentiar$ value as is the onl$ information sined b$ the informant which b$ wa$ retains its authenticit$ that it is truthful information. It is also important to note that FIR need not be an enc$clopedia of events' what is re%uired that it should disclose the commission of a coni!able o"ence on the ver$ face of it.  Therefore' it is the earliest and the rst information of a

coni!able o"ence recorded b$ an o)cer in chare of a police station. It sets the criminal law in motion and mar(s the commencement of the investiation which ends up with the formation of opinion under 3ection 1B9 or 1E' as the case ma$ be and the forwardin of police report under 3ection 16 of  Cr.P.C.

&I&(IORAP)9 

 Aare 5ct/ The Code of Criminal Procedure' 196.

 <ur <as Aasu/ Criminal Procedure Code 0in - volumes'

8th _{:dition' -E1E.}

 ,.<. Aasu/ Commentar$ on Criminal Procedure' 9th :dition'

-EE1.

 +.,. Chandrase(haran Pillai/ R.*. +el(ar’s Criminal

Procedure' :astern Aoo( Compan$' ?uc(now' -E18.

 Ratanlal and <hira#lal/ Criminal Procedure Code' adhwa

and Co. ,apur' 19th _{:dition -E18}

 3 C 3ar(ar / The ?aw of Criminal Procedure' <wivedi ?aw

5enc$'-nd 0Reprint' -E1E'

 oodro"e/ Commentaries on Code of Criminal Procedure'