INTRODUCTION FIR is the abbreviated form of the ‘First Information Report.’ The word First Information Report has not been dened 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 coni!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. Coni!able o"ence means the o"ence in which the Police ma$ arrest a person without a warrant. The$ are authori!ed to start investiation suo su o mott otto in intto con coni! i!ab able le case cases s and do not not re%ui e%uirre an$ an$ investiations from the Court as re%uired in non& coni!able o"ences.1F.I.R is a ver$ valuable document. It is of utmost leal importance' both from the point of view of the prosecution and founatio tion n of the case in the the defence. defence. It consti constitut tutes es the founa 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 loded. Cros Cross s FIR FIR& when such FIR is loded 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 chare lodes an FIR but that police station does not have #urisdiction to
1 R.*. +el(ar' Criminal Procedure' P. ,o. 1-.
-
investiate' such an FIR ultimatel$ is transferred to the police station havin #urisdiction.
Section 154 of t#e Coe reas as fo!!o$s% Information in coni!able cases/& 01 ever$ information relatin to the commission of a coni!able o"ence' if iven orall$ to an o)cer in chare 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 sin sined 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 arieved arieved b$ a refusal refusal on the the part of an o)cer o)cer in chare 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 sed ed that hat su such ch in info forrmatio ation n discloses the commission of a coni!able o"ence' shall either investiate the case himself or direct an investiation 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 chare 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 vestiatin authorities is to obtain information about the alleed criminal
- 3ection 178 of the Code of Criminal Procedure' Procedure' 196.
6
activit$ so as to be able to ta(e suitable steps to trace and brin to boo( the uilt$.6 To set the law in motion FIR is loded with a view to settin the investiative process in motion and not for the purpose of settin down on paper all (nown facts and circumstances about the incident.8 It does not constitute substantive evidence it can' however' be used as a previous statement for the purpose of corroboration or contradiction of its ma(er under 3ection 17 or 3ection 187 of the Indian :vidence 5ct. It can be no means be utili!ed or discreditin other witnesses. FIR is not a condition precedent for settin up the criminal law in motion. The statement of the wife of the deceased was ta(en as an FIR in the case.7
SCOPE AND APP(ICATION ;uch importance attaches to the rst statement of a person who lodes an information in the thana about the commission of a crime as it is the oriinal stor$ 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 chare 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 vaue but denite enouh to enable the police to start investiation relatin to the commission of a coni!able o"ence. Information must relate to the commission of a coni!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 coni!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 satised that the information discloses the commission of a coni!able o"ence' he shall either investiate the case himself or direct an investiation 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 investiatin the o"ence shall have all the powers of an o)cer in chare of police station in relation to that o"ence. 5nd if his rievance still persists' then he can approach a ;aistrate under 3ection 17806 instead of runnin to the Dih 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 etra&ordinar$ #urisdiction. -6
T7O FIRs IN RESPECT OF SAME INCIDENT The leal position is that there can be no two FIRs aainst 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 investiation 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 #ustied in refusin to record the second FIR. In such a case' the ;aistrate can direct the police to investiate also the second FIR.-7
7)O CAN (ODE FIR 5n$one who (nows about the commission of a coni!able o"ence can le F.I.R. It is not necessar$ that onl$ the victim of -6 7E.
16
5 FIR means the information' b$ whomsoever iven' to the o)cer in chare of a police station in relation to the commission of a coni!able o"ence and which is rst in point of time and on the strenth of which the investiation 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 reardin the occurrence cannot be doubted.-9 Thouh 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$ leall$ competent to investiate the fact' ma$ be proved.61 It was held in Panuran, C#anra;ant M#atre -0 State of Ma#aras#tra* 3tate of Aomba$ v. Rus$ ;istr$' 19BE Cr?@ 76-. -9 3(. Dasib v. 3tate of Aihar' 019- 8 3CC 6. 6E 5hnoo ,aesia v. 3tate of Aihar' 19BBCr?@ 1EE' 1E6. 61 oodro"e/ Commentaries on Code of Criminal Procedure' p. 76. 6- 019>B 8 3CC 86B/ 19>B 3CC 0Cri7EE/ 19>B Cr?@ 197.
18
thereof and it cannot be utili!ed for contradictin or discreditin the testimon$ other witnesses. The FIR should be loded with the police at the earliest opportunit$ after the occurrence of the report to the police is to obtain earl$ information reardin the circumstances in which the crime was committed. - Cr?@ 896' 897.
17
To show that the implication of the accused was not an afterthouht. 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 aainst him as evidence of his conduct 03.>' :vidence 5ct2 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 eamined as a witness. o Aut such FIR made b$ one accused cannot be used as evidence aainst 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 aainst him as evidence and the doctrine of severabilit$ cannot be invo(ed. 5n FIR loded b$ the accused cannot be used aainst 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$ loded' 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-ience 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 epect from villaers 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 epected 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 uneplained dela$ in ivin the FIR. In the case of Amar Sin,# -0 &a!$iner Sin,#'67 their ?ordships of the 3upreme Court held& GThere is no hard and fast rule that an$ dela$ in lodin 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 lodin 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$aharan v. 3tate of +erala' 0-EE8 1 3CC -172 Tara 3inh v. 3tate of Pun#ab' 5IR 1991 3C B6. 67 0-EE6 - 3CC 71>.
1
nature of in#uries sustained' the number of victims' the e"orts made to provide medical aid to them' the distance of the hospital and the police station etc. have to be ta(en into consideration. There is no mathematical formula b$ which an inference ma$ be drawn either wa$ merel$ on account of dela$ in lodin of the FIRH. ?aw has not ed an$ time for lin FIR' as such a dela$ed FIR is not illeal. 5 mere dela$ in lodin of FIR cannot be a round b$ itself for throwin the entire prosecution case abroad. The Court has to see( an eplanation for dela$ and test the truthfulness and plausibilit$ of the reason assined. If the dela$ is eplained to the satisfaction of the Court' it cannot be counted aainst 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 lodin the FIR would not be fatal in the case where substantive evidence of P3 reardin 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 niht' FIR was led net 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 uneplained dela$ in lin FIR created doubt about the involvement of other accused person. In case of State of )imac#a! Praes# -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$ eplanation 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$ eplain the dela$ and there is possibilit$ of embellishment or eaeration in the prosecution version on account of such dela$' it is a relevant factor. =n the other hand satisfactor$ eplanation of the dela$ is weiht$ enouh to re#ect the plea of false implication or vulnerabilit$ of prosecution case. In Santos# Moo!+a -0 State of arnata;a '6> thouh there was dela$ of 8- da$s in lodin the complaint to the police' the prosecution witnesses 0P&1 K P&- in their evidence eplained that all their famil$ 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 eplanation of dela$ was accepted b$ the Court.
DE(A9 IN SE>UA( OFFENCES The Courts cannot overloo( the fact that in seual o"ences' dela$ in lodin 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 thouht on arrival of the elders in the famil$ that a complaint of seual o"ence is enerall$ loded. In rape cases some dela$ in lodin 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 lodin FIR where eplained 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.
Thank you for interesting in our services. We are a non-profit group that run this website to share documents. We need your help to maintenance this website.