ALL ABOUT FIR.

WHAT IS MEANT BY  FIRST INFORMATION REPORT ?

FIR is not an encyclopedia. It is only to set the law in motion. It need not elaborate but should

contain necessary allegations to constitute cognizable offences.

1) ROTASH Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN [(2006) 12 SCC 64]

HEAD NOTE: Sections 154 and 161 Cr.P.C. - First Information Report – Discrepancy – Effect – Name

of the appellant not disclosed in FIR by PW 1 – However, he categorically named by PWs 1 and 6 (mother

of the deceased and the accused, as well as an injured witness) in their statements before the police and

specific overt act attributed to him by PW 1 before the court – Held, the FIR is not an encyclopaedia of the

entire case and need not contain all the details – Though the importance of naming an accused in FIR

cannot be ignored, but in the instant case he had been named at the earliest possible opportunity –

Question as to whether a person was implicated by way of an afterthought or not must be judged having

regard to the entire factual scenario obtaining in the case – However, non-naming of the appellant by PW 1

is no reason to disbelieve the testimony of PW 6 who was a crucial witness.

(Paras 14, 21, 22 and 23)

(a). Evidentiary Value:

Section 154, Cr.P.C – Use of FIR - FIR is not a substantial piece of evidence - It can only be used

for corroborating or contradicting its maker – It cannot be used to corroborate or contradict other witnesses

–Baldev Singh vs. State of Punjab – (1990) 4 SCC 692 ; State of Gujarat vs. Anirudhsing – (1997) 6

SCC 514.

Section 154, Cr.P.C. – FIR – Evidentiary value – Corroboration of its maker is permissible – But the

first information report cannot be used as substantive evidence or corroborating a statement of third party –

State of M.P. vs. Surbhan – AIR 1996 SC 3345.

(b). Delay in FIR:

Delay in FIR – The inordinate and unexplained delay in despatching the first information report to the

Magistrate – The difference in the account given by the prosecution witnesses and appearing from the first

information report of the occurrence – the absence of any statement in the first information report as to the

injuries received by some of the accused, and the non-examination of material witnesses – Conviction

cannot be sustained – Ishwar Singh vs. State of U.P – AIR 1976 SC 2423.

The Hon’ble Apex Court in Meharaj Singh (L/Nk.) V. State of U.P. (1994 (5) SCC 188) has held

that,

”12. FIR in a criminal case and particularly in a murder case is a vital and valuable piece of

evidence for the purpose of appreciating the evidence led at the trial. The object of insisting upon

prompt lodging of the FIR is to obtain the earliest information regarding the circumstance in which

the crime was committed, including the names of the actual culprits and the parts played by them,

4

the weapons, if any, used, as also the names of the eyewitnesses, if any. Delay in lodging the FIR

often results in embellishment, which is a creature of an afterthought. On account of delay, the FIR

not only gets bereft of the advantage of spontaneity, danger also creeps in of the introduction of a

coloured version or exaggerated story. With a view to determine whether the FIR was lodged at the

time it is alleged to have been recorded, the courts generally look for certain external checks. One

of the checks is the receipt of the copy of the FIR, called a special report in a murder case, by the

local Magistrate. If this report is received by the Magistrate late it can give rise to an inference that

the FIR was not lodged at the time it is alleged to have been recorded, unless, of course the

prosecution can offer a satisfactory explanation for the delay in despatching or receipt of the copy of

the FIR by the local Magistrate. …. The second external check equally important is the sending of

the copy of the FIR along with the dead body and its reference in the inquest report. Even though

the inquest report, prepared under Section 174 CrPC, is aimed at serving a statutory function, to

lend credence to the prosecution case, the details of the FIR and the gist of statements recorded

during inquest proceedings get reflected in the report. The absence of those details is indicative of

the fact that the prosecution story was still in embryo and had not been given any shape and that

the FIR came to be recorded later on after due deliberations and consultations and was then antetimed

to give it the colour of a promptly lodged FIR. ….”

The Hon’ble Apex Court in State of H.P. V. Gian Chand (2001) 6 SCC 71 has held that,

“12. Delay in lodging the FIR cannot be used as a ritualistic formula for doubting the prosecution

case and discarding the same solely on the ground of delay in lodging the first information report.

Delay has the effect of putting the court in its guard to search if any explanation has been offered for

the delay, and if offered, whether it is satisfactory or not. If the prosecution fails to satisfactorily

explain the delay and there is a possibility of embellishment in the prosecution version on account of

such delay, the delay would be fatal to the prosecution. However, if the delay is explained to the

satisfaction of the court, the delay cannot by itself be a ground for disbelieving and discarding the

entire prosecution case.”

The Hon’ble Apex Court in Dilawar Singh V. State of Delhi reported in 2007 (12) SCC 641

has held that,

“9. In criminal trial one of the cardinal principles for the Court is to look for plausible explanation

for the delay in lodging the report. Delay sometimes affords opportunity to the complainant to

make deliberation upon the complaint and to make embellishment or even make fabrications.

Delay defeats the chance of the unsoiled and untarnished version of the case to be presented

before the court at the earliest instance. That is why if there is delay in either coming before the

police or before the court, the courts always view the allegations with suspicion and look for

satisfactory explanation. If no such satisfaction is formed, the delay is treated as fatal to the

prosecution case.”

Delay in lodging first information report cannot be used as a ritualistic formula for doubting a

case Silak Ram v. State of Haryana, AIR 2007 SC 2739. To the same effect there is another case

Gourishankara Swamigala v. State of Karnataka, AIR 2008 SC 2349.

5

(c). Delay to Magistrate Court:–

No proper explanation – Fatal to the prosecution case – State of Rajasthan V. Sheo Singh (AIR

2003 SC 1783). Similar view was taken earlier in Awadesh V. State of M.P. (AIR 1988 SC 1158) and in

State of Rajasthan V. Teja Singh (2001 SCC (Cri) 439).

(d). Nature of FIR:-

General diary containing – General diary containing a noting of a report regarding cognizable

offence, cannot be treated as FIR - Telephonic information to investigating officer – Such information not in

nature of FIR – Animireddy Venkata Ramana vs. Public Prosecutor, High Court of Andhra Pradesh -

(2008) 5 SCC 368.

6