First Information Report and Its Scope

1

FIRST INFORMATION REPORT AND ITS SCOPE

INTRODUCTION FIR is the abbreviated form of the ‘First Information Report.’  The word First Information Report has not been dened in the Code of Criminal Criminal Procedure. Procedure. It is the information information which is iven to the police relatin to the commission of a coni!able o"ence and Section 154 of the Code provides for the manner in which 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 means the o"ence in which the Police ma$ arrest a person without a warrant. The$ are authori!ed to start investiation suo su o mott otto in intto con coni! i!ab able le case cases s and do not not re%ui e%uirre an$ an$ investiations from the Court as re%uired in non& coni!able o"ences.1F.I.R is a ver$ valuable document. It is of utmost leal importance' both from the point of view of the prosecution and founatio tion n of the case in the the defence. defence. It consti constitut tutes es the founa rst instance and whole of the case ase is bui uillt on it. it. If the foundation is wea(' the prosecution case will tumble down. 







Mu!tip! Mu!t ip!e e FIR& mult multipl iple e FIR FIR is the the situat situatio ion n in whic which h in respe espect ct of the sam same o"en o"ence ce seve severa rall FIRs FIRs have have been been loded. Cros Cross s FIR FIR& when such FIR is loded in the same case b$ the opposite part$. Anti Time FIR& It is the FIR after a lon dela ela$ of  occurrence of the event' but cannot be anti timed "ero "e ro FIR FIR& whenever a police o)cer in chare lodes an FIR but that police station does not have #urisdiction to

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

-

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

Section 154 of t#e Coe reas as fo!!o$s% Information in coni!able cases/& 01 ever$ information relatin to the commission of a coni!able o"ence' if iven orall$ to an o)cer in chare of a police station' shall be reduced to writin b$ him or under his direction' and be read over to the informant2 and ever$ such information' whether iven in writin or reduc educed ed to writ writin in  as afor afores esai aid' d' sh shal alll be sin sined ed b$ the the 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 4overnment ma$ prescribe in this behalf. 0- 5 cop$ of information as recorded under sub& section 01 shall be iven forthwith' free of cost' to the informant. 06 an$ person person arieved arieved b$ a refusal refusal on the the part of an o)cer o)cer in chare of a police station to record the information referred to in sub& section01 ma$ send the substance of such information' in writin and b$ post' to the 3uperintendent of  Polic olice e conc concer erne ned d who' ho' if sati satis sed ed that hat su such ch in info forrmatio ation n discloses the commission of a coni!able o"ence' shall either investiate the case himself or direct an investiation to be made b$ an$ police o)cer subordinate to him' in the manner prov provid ided ed b$ this this Code Code'' and and su such ch o)ce o)cerr sh shal alll have have all all the the powers of an o)cer in chare of the police station in relation to that of the o"ence. -

O&'ECT OF FIR  The principal ob#ect of the rst information report from the point of view of the informant is to set the criminal law in motion and from the poin intt of view iew of the in inv vestiatin authorities is to obtain information about the alleed criminal

- 3ection 178 of the Code of Criminal Procedure' Procedure' 196.

6

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 0-E16 6 3CC 798/ 0-E16 6 3CC 0Cri -67. 19 0-E18 - 3CC I. -E ,. Thirumoorthi v. 3tate' -EE Cr?@ 0,=C 979 0;ad..

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 > Cr?@ B8.

11

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 7E.

16

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* 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. - Cr?@ 896' 897.

17















 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. an$ part of the statement of the accused is o If 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$in, circumstances%= -. In the in#uries are bein caused in the presence of 3tation Douse =)cer sa$in that accused was in#urin him.

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$.68In view of the series of clashes which too( place on that da$' 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. 67 0-EE6 - 3CC 71>.

1

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 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 6> 5IR -E1E 3C --8/ 0-E1E 7 3CC 877.

19

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

In )arpa! Sin,# - State of )P*