What is the First Information Report? What is its evidentiary value ?

 What is the First Information Report? What is its evidentiary value ?

1.The First Information Report is recorded under section 154 Crpc. It is to put law into motion.  

2.The Information is to be given to the Police officer in charge of a police station having jurisdiction to investigate the case. 

3.If the information is given orally it shall be reduced into writing by the officer himself or under his direction. 

4.The information shall be signed by the informant. The information taken down in writing shall be read over to the informant.

5.The substance of the  information is then to be entered by the police officer in a book kept by him in the prescribed form. This book is called a general diary. Under Article 44 of the Police Act 1861. It is mandatory to keep a general diary to make minute to minute details about the work done by police officers, investigation reports of the different cases and cash transactions etc. 

6.Section 154 requires the FIR to be recorded verbatim in the very language of the informant to be read over and explained to him and to be signed by the informant. The idea behind reading over the information reduced into writing and obtaining the signature of the  first informant thereon are intended to ensure that what has been reduced into writing is a true and faithful version of the information given to the officer in charge of the police station.  

7.The informant then shall be forthwith given a copy of the FIR, free of cost. 

8.In the case of Palwinder Singh vs State of Punjab (1997), the Supreme Court held that, “No police officer can refuse to register the complaint if it discloses the commission of cognizable offences.” 

9. According to section 154 (3), if a person is aggrieved by non registration of his case, he may send by post the substance of such information in writing to the superintendent of the police concerned. If the superintendent of the police is satisfied that the information discloses the commission of the cognizable offence, he shall either investigate the case himself or direct an investigation to be made by a subordinate police officer in the manner provided by the court. Such subordinate police officers investigating the offence shall have all the power of an officer in charge of a police station. In relation to that offence. 

10.Provided that if the information is given by the woman against whom an offence under section 326 A, section 326 B, section 354, 354 A, 354 B, 354 C, 354 D, 376, 376 A, 376 AB, 376 B,376 C, 376 D, 376 DA, 376 DB, 376 E or 509 IPC is alleged to have been committed or attempted then such information shall be recorded by a woman police officer or any woman officer.

11.Provided further that in the event that the person against whom an offence under section 354,354 A, 354 B, 354 C, 354 D, 376, 376 A, 376 AB, 376B, 376 C, 376D, 376 DA, 376 DB, 376E or 509 IPC is alleged to have been committed or attempted or temporary or permanently is mentally of physically disabled, then such information shall be recorded by police officer at the residence of the person seeking to report such offence or at a convenience place of such person’s choice in the presence of an interpreter or a special educator, as the case may be.

12.The recording of such information shall be videographed. The police officer shall get the statement of person recorded by judicial magistrate under section 164 Crpc as soon as possible. 

Registration of FIR is mandatory 

1.In the case of Lalita Kumar vs Government of UP, the Supreme Court held that the officer concerned is duty bound to register the case on the basis of information disclosing commission of cognizable offence. Thus, it is a mandatory provision. However, if no cognizable offence is made out in the information given, then the FIR need not be registered immediately and the police may conduct a preliminary inquiry in order to ascertain as to whether a cognizable offence has been committed or not. These cases may pertain to family disputes, marriage related issues, corruption charges, medical negligence or economic offences  investigated by CBI etc. 

2.In the youth bar association of India vs Union of India, the Supreme Court held that all the FIRs registered in police stations, except those offences of sensitive nature are required to be uploaded on the official website of all States. 

3.The obligation to register FIR has been mandated because it is the first step to access justice to victims. It upholds the rule of law. It facilitates swift investigation. It avoids manipulations in criminal cases.  

4.Where an anonymous telephonic message did not disclose the names of the accused nor did it disclose a commission of a cognizable offence, it was held by the Supreme Court in the case of Tapinder Singh vs State (1970) that  such a message could not be held as FIR. 

5.In the case of Tehal Singh vs State of Rajasthan (1989), the Supreme Court held that telephonic message received by an officer in charge in police station from an ascertained person, reduced into writing discloses commission of a cognizable offence and is not cryptic or incomplete in essential details, constitute a FIR. 

6.In case of more than one person making statements to the police about the same cognizable offence, in such a situation the police officer will use common sense and record one of the statements as FIR. 

7.Statements recorded by the police in respect of a cognizable offence can be considered and used as FIR if the same is recorded before the commencement of the investigation, but not otherwise.

Evidentiary value of FIR

1.It is a settled law that a FIR is not substantial evidence. However, its importance being the earliest information regarding the occurrence cannot be doubted. Though the FIR is not substantive evidence, it can be used to corroborate the informant under section 157 evidence act or to contradict him under section 145 of the evidence act. 

2.The FIR should be lodged with the police at the earliest opportunity after the occurrence of a cognizable offence. Delay in lodging the FIR results in embellishment, exaggerated account or concocted story. Thus it is essential that the delay in lodging the FIR should be satisfactorily explained. In the case of P Rajgopal vs State of Tamil Nadu, the Supreme Court held that undue delay in lodging the FIR gives rise to suspicion which puts the courts on guard to look for the possible motive and cast doubt on the prosecution version of trustworthiness.

3.If the FIR is given to the police by the accused himself it cannot possibly be used either for corroboration or contradiction. The accused cannot be the prosecution witness. 

4. If FIR is of a confessional nature,it cannot be proved against the accused informant as it would be hit by section 25 of evidence act because no confession made to a police officer shall be proved as against a person accused of an offence. 

5.If the FIR given by the accused is non-confessional, it may be admissible in evidence against the accused as an admission under section 21 of evidence act or showing his conduct under section 8 of evidence act. 

6.If the first informant dies, the FIR can be used under section 32 (1) of the evidence act.