CrPC – I (Online Examination)

Evidentiary Value of FIR

Submitted to Dr Asad Malik by Syed Umair Ahmed Andrabi for the fulfilment of academic
requirement of online examination (CrPC – I, VIIIth Semester)
Table of Contents
Introduction..................................................................................................................................3
State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal:...............................................................................................................3
Object of FIR:................................................................................................................................3
Essentials of of FIR:.......................................................................................................................4
Evidentiary value:.........................................................................................................................5
Corroboration:........................................................................................................................................5
Ram Chandra V. State of Haryana,................................................................................................................... 5
For contradiction:...................................................................................................................................5
Haseeb v. State of Bihar:................................................................................................................................... 6
Baldev Singh v. State of Punjab 1996:............................................................................................................... 6
Dying Declaration:..................................................................................................................................6
K.R. Reddy v. Public Prosecutor........................................................................................................................ 7
In Dhamodar Prasad v. State of UP 1975.......................................................................................................... 7
Kapoor Singh V. Emperor:................................................................................................................................ 7
Sukhar V. State of UP....................................................................................................................................... 7

Exceptions:....................................................................................................................................8
FIR of confessional nature:......................................................................................................................8
FIR by the accused himself:.....................................................................................................................8
The main reasons why FIR does not have any substantive evidentiary value:................................8
The reasons why FIR are treated as an important piece of evidence:.............................................8
Conclusion.....................................................................................................................................9
Bibliography................................................................................................................................10
Introduction

The term FIR has not been defined anywhere in CrPC. However, section 207 mentions the word FIR
as a report under section 145, CrPC.

In layman’s word, First Information Report (FIR) is the knowledge or information of any occurrence
especially related to crime or the subjects which are either restricted or prohibited by law. The term
FIR is not defined anywhere in our law but Section 154 & 155 of CrPC talks about the cognizance of
any information related to cognizable offenses and non-cognizable offenses respectively. The
purpose of FIR is to bring the law into the action of cognizance of any offence, and with the
cognizance, it is the duty of the state to offer redressal to the victim and protect the society from such
offences.

State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal:

It was held that in a condition where there is an information and that information must disclose a
cognizable offence. And if any such information before an officer satisfies the requirements of
Section 154(1), the said police officer has no other option except to enter the substance thereof in the
prescribed form.

Object of FIR:

1. The object of FIR is to set the criminal law in motion. FIR is not a proof of the case but a
piece of evidence which could be used for corroborating the case of prosecution. [Jitender
Kumar v. State of Haryana (2012)]
2. It also ensures case is well-documented from the start.
3. It is the earliest information received in relation to commission of cognizable offence and is
recorded so that there exists no manipulation.
Essentials of of FIR:
The essentials of FIR are summarized in 11 W’s:

1. What information is conveyed?

2. In what capacity?
3. Who committed the crime?
4. Against whom is the crime committed?
5. When was the crime committed?
6. Where was the crime committed?
7. Why (Motive behind the crime)
8. Which way as to the actual occurrence?
9. Witnesses
10. What was taken away
11. What traces were left by the accused?

Evidentiary value:

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.
It can be used in the following ways as a substantive piece of evidence:

Corroboration:

FIR can be used for corroboration with the former statements of the witnesses (the same fact or
statements In FIR are former statements). (Section 157, Indian Evidence Act). Section 157 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.

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.

For contradiction:

Accused can cross-examine a witness as to the statements in FIR under section 145 of the Indian
Evidence Act. Section 145 of Indian Evidence Act, talk 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. 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.

Haseeb v. State of Bihar:

It was held that FIR is not a substantive piece of evidence but may be us to corroborate or
contradict.
Baldev Singh v. State of Punjab 1996:

The court held the same position and said that the FIR can be used for contradiction or
corroboration and not as a substantive piece of evidence.

The same position was maintained in Thulia Kali v. Stae of Tamil Nadu (1972)

Dying Declaration:

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.

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 Dhamodar Prasad v. State of UP 1975

The court held that in case of death of informant, FIR is a substantive piece of evidence.

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.

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.

Exceptions:
FIR of confessional nature:

If F.I.R. is made by accused himself then it could be used as per the normal rules of evidence unless
it is in the nature of a confession, as then it will be hit by Section 25 of the Evidence Act. (Aghnoo
Nagesia v. State of Bihar AIR 1966 SC 119) Thus If it is confessional in nature then it will become
inadmissible except the portion which will come under Section 27 of the Evidence Act.

FIR by the accused himself:

It might be relevant u/s 8 of IEA since this event of registration of FIR depicts the conduct
influenced by the fact in issue or relevant fact.
Also, under section 21 of Indian Evidence Act, admission of non-confessional nature are relevant
facts.

FIR of confessional nature can be partly used as per the requirements of section 27. The portions as
relates distinctly to the fact become relevant and needs to be proved.

The 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.

Conclusion
After ascertaining the provisions, it can be assumed that the FIR is an important report and if duly
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 contradicting
witnesses, Therefore, it becomes necessary 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
Statutes

The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973

The Constitution of India, 1950

The Indian Penal Code, 1860

Books

R. V. Kelkar, Criminal Procedure, Eastern Book Co., Lucknow, 1998.

D. D. Basu, Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, Ashoka Law House, New Delhi, 2001

Other

Class Notes, Dr Mohd. Asad Malik, Professor concerned, CrPC – I .

Online resources

www.indiankaknoon.com

www.legalservicesindia.com

www.vakilno1.com

www.manupatra.com

www.lawcommissionofindia.nic.in

www.scconline.com

www.livelaw.in