Evidentiary Value of FIR

By: Hifajatali Sayyed

 Introduction
• The first information report gives information of the commission of
a cognizable crime.

• It may be made by the complainant or by any other person knowing

about the commission of such offence.

• It is intended to set the criminal law in motion.

• Any information relating to the commission of a cognizable offence

is required to be reduced to writing by the officer in charge of the
police station which has to be signed by the person giving it and the
substance thereof is required to be entered into a book kept by such
officer in such form as the State Government may prescribe.
 Evidentiary Value

• The First Information Report cannot be considered as

substantive evidence because it is not made during trial, it is
not given on oath, nor is it tested by cross- examination.

• If the person making any such statement to the police subsequently

appears and gives evidence in court at the time of trial, his
former statement could, however be used to corroborate or to
contradict his testimony according to the provisions of the
Evidence Act, 1872.
 Evidentiary Value
• Section 157 of the Evidence Act states that:
• “In order to corroborate the testimony of a witness, any former
statement made by such a witness relating to the same fact, at or
about the time when the offence took place, or before any
authority legally competent to investigate the fact may be
proved.”
• Section 157 allows the statement of a witness to be corroborated by his
former statement relating to same fact at or about the time when
the fact took place or before any competent authority.
• The previous statement of particular witness can be used to corroborate
only his evidence during trial and not evidence of other
witnesses.
 Evidentiary Value
• The FIR can have better corroborative value if it is recorded before
there is time and opportunity to embellish or before the informant’s
memory fails.

• 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 and consider its
effect on the trustworthiness or otherwise of the prosecution
version.
 Evidentiary Value
• Further, Section 145 of the Evidence Act provides:

• “A witness may be crossed-examined as to previous

statements made by him in writing or reduced into writing, and
relevant to matters in question, without such writing being shown to
him, or being proved; but if it is intended to contradict him by the
writing, his attention must, before writing can be proved, be called
to those parts of it which are to be used for the purpose of
contradicting him.”
 Evidentiary Value
• Section 145 consists of two parts.

• According to the first part a witness may be cross-examined as

to previous statement made by him in writing or is reduced into
writing without showing the writing to him or proving the same.

• Second part is intended to contradict him through cross-

examination where the previous statement is in writing.

• The object of the section is either to test the memory of witness

or to contradict him by previous statements in writing.
 Evidentiary Value
 Damodar Prasad vs State of Maharashtra (AIR 1972 SC 622)

• In this case, the Court held that the first information report is not
substantive evidence. It can be used for one of the limited
purposes of corroborating or contradicting the makers thereof.

• The Court further added that in certain cases, the first

information report can be used under section 32(1) of the
Evidence Act or under section 8 of the Evidence Act as to the
cause of the informant's death or as part of the informer's conduct.
 Evidentiary Value
 Sec 32 Evidence Act (Dying Declaration):
• Section 32(1) of the Indian Evidence Act deals with dying
declaration and lays down that when a statement is made by a
person as to the cause of his death, or as to any of the circumstances
of the transaction which resulted in his death, such a statement is
relevant in every case or proceeding in which the cause of the
person’s death comes into question.
• Further, such statements are relevant whether the person who made
them was or was not at the time when they were made under
expectation of death and whatever may be the nature of the
proceedings in which the case of his death comes into question.
 Evidentiary Value
 Dying Declaration:

• The principle on which a dying declaration is admissible in evidence

is indicated in the maxim Nemo Moriturus Praesumitur
Mentire, which means that a man will not meet his maker
with a lie in his mouth. It stands for the premise that one who
is about to die has no reason to lie.

• Thus it is clear that a dying declaration may be relating to:-

(a) as to the cause of death of the deceased,

(b) as to “any of the circumstances of the transaction” which

resulted in the death of the deceased.
 Evidentiary Value
 Dying Declaration:
• When an injured person lodges a FIR and then dies, it was held that
the FIR will be relevant as a dying declaration.
 Munnu Raja and another v. State of M.P. (AIR 1976 SC 2199)
• In this case, the Supreme Court held that statement by injured
person recorded as FIR can be treated as dying declaration
and such statement is admissible under Section 32 of Indian
Evidence Act. It was also held that dying declaration must not cover
the whole incident or narrate the case history. Corroboration is
not necessary for this situation, Dying declaration can be the sole
purpose for conviction.
 Evidentiary Value
 Sec 8 Evidence Act: (Motive, preparation and conduct )

• It states that any fact is relevant which shows or constitutes a motive or

preparation for any fact in issue or relevant fact.

• It further states that the conduct of any party, or of any agent to any
party, to any suit or proceeding, in reference to such suit or proceeding, or
in reference to any fact in issue therein or relevant thereto, and the conduct
of any person an offence against whom is the subject of any proceeding, is
relevant, if such conduct influences or is influenced by any fact in issue or
relevant fact, and whether it was previous or subsequent thereto.

• Eg: The question is, whether A robbed B. The facts that, after B was robbed,
C said in A’s presence –– “the police are coming to look for the man who
robbed B,” and that immediately afterwards A ran away, are relevant.
 Evidentiary Value
• Following circumstances have been identified as the uses of FIR, which
are non-confessional in nature, for evidentiary purposes:

1. For corroboration purposes: It cannot be ignored altogether and can

be used to corroborate the statement of the informant.

2. For contradicting the evidence of person giving the information.

3. For proving informer’s conduct.

4. For impeaching the credit of an informer.

5. For refreshing informer’s memory.

6. For establishing identity of accused, witnesses & for fixing spot time as
relevant facts under Section 9 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872
 Evidentiary Value
• Impeaching Credit of Witness:

• Sec 155 of Evidence Act deals with manners by which the credit
of a witness may be impeached. Impeaching the credit of witness
means exposing him before the court, so that the court does
not trust him. Impeaching the credit of witness may be done
either by the opposite party or with the permission of court by the
party who called him. It can be done in three ways:

1. Unworthy of Credit: By producing independent witnesses from

their means of knowledge and experience, they can testify that the
witness if question is unworthy of credit.
 Evidentiary Value
• Impeaching Credit of Witness:
2. Corrupt Inducement: By producing independent witness the
credit of witness can be impeached that he has taken bribe, or has
accepted the offer of a bribe or has received any other corrupt
inducement to give evidence.
3. Previous inconsistent statements: This clause provides that
the credit of witness may be impeached by proving his previous
statements. When the present statement is contradicted by citing
previous statement it must be satisfactorily proved. The previous
contradictory statements of a witness can be used to discredit only
his testimony and not that of other witnesses.
 Evidentiary Value
 Impeaching Credit of Witness:

 Purandar Bhukta vs State of Orissa (1991 Cri. L.J. 1388)

• In this case, the accused, a Contractor, came to the victim who was a
Block Development Officer and demanded to pay money in relation
to the work done by him and when the informant told him that no
money were due to be paid to him as he did not do any work, the
accused gave a slap to him.

• Thereafter an FIR was registered u/s 332 and sec 448 of IPC
based on the statement of the victim that the accused has slapped him.

• The fact that there was bleeding from his mouth was not
mentioned in the FIR.
 Evidentiary Value
 Impeaching Credit of Witness:

 Purandar Bhukta vs State of Orissa Cont...

• Here the Court held that the victim omitted to state about his
sustaining a bleeding injury from his mouth both in the FIR as
well as his statement before the investigating officer and the
same are material omissions which seriously impeach the
credibility of the witness.
 Evidentiary Value
• Refreshing memory:

• Sec 159 of Evidence Act states that a witness may, while under
examination, refresh his memory by referring to any writing
made by himself at the time of the transaction concerning which
he is questioned, or so soon afterwards that the Court considers it
likely that the transaction was at that time fresh in his memory.

• Ordinary meaning of refreshing memory means the opportunity is

given to the witness to recollect event.

• For refreshing memory it is always advisable that he looks into

records before answering the question.
 Evidentiary Value
 FIR lodged by accused:

• If the FIR is given to the police by the accused himself, it cannot

possibly be used either for corroboration or contradiction.

• Moreover, if the FIR is of a confessional nature it cannot be

proved against the accused informant, because according to
Section 25 of the Evidence Act, no confession made to a police
officer can be proved as against a person accused of any offence. But
it might become relevant under section 8 of the Evidence
Act as to his conduct.
 Evidentiary Value
 FIR lodged by accused:
• Further it may be noted that if any statement made to a police
amounts to a confession, such a confession cannot be proved
against a person accused of any offence. However, this bar
on proof of confession made to a police officer is partially lifted by
Section 27 of the Evidence Act which provides:
“When any fact is deposed to as discovered in consequence of
information received from a person accused of any offence, in the
custody of a police officer, so much of such information, whether it
amounts to a confession or not, as relates distinctly to the fact
thereby discovered, may be proved.”
 Evidentiary Value
 FIR lodged by accused:

• Example: Relying upon the confession made by accused person, if

the police officer discovers the weapon used in crime than it is
admissible in the court of law.
 Evidentiary Value
• Proving of FIR:

a) FIR is a public document and it has to be proved like any other

document.

b) The informant must be produced in the court during the

trial and must be examined by the prosecution and cross-
examined by the defence.

c) FIR should be marked as an exhibit.

 Evidentiary Value
 FIR is a Public Document:

• FIR is a public document prepared under Section 154 of CrPC. A

certified copy of the FIR can be given in evidence. Accused is
entitled to get a copy of the FIR only under the orders of
the Court after the Court has taken cognizance of the case and not
before but the accused can get a copy of FIR on payment of
fees from the Court. The officer-in-charge of a Police Station is
not authorized to give copy of FIR to the accused. If he gives copy of
the FIR to the accused he will be liable under Section 29 of the
Police Act, 1961.
 Evidentiary Value
 Section 74 of the Indian Evidence Act reads:

• Public documents: - The following documents are public

documents,-

(1) Documents forming the acts or records of the acts-

(i) of the sovereign authority,

(ii) of official bodies and Tribunals, and

(iii) of public officers, legislative, judicial and executive, of any part of

India or of the Common Wealth, or of a foreign country.

(2) Public records kept in any State of private documents.