First Information Report
To,
The Officer-in-charge of the police station
Ram Prakash Singh
Lucknow.
Sir,
Today at 2 A.M. a group of three people armed with guns entered my house by breaking the main door. Among the three, two persons tied my hand with a rope and put cloths in my mouth, as I was struggling to shout to help. One person beat my wife with gun and she fell unconscious. At the gun point they took the key of almirah from me and took away the cash, silver and gold articles and left the house.
Description of the property:-
(1).
(2).
(3).
In the early hours, hearing our screaming, milk boy came to in, united me and called the neighbours. After admitting my wife in Apollo hospital. I came to police station to lodge information. I can identify my property and also the culprits if I happen to see.
I request you to take necessary action to trace out my stolen articles and book the culprits.
Thanking you,
Your faithfully,
Sd/-
y. Ramakanth
H.N. 13-2-82/6
Lucknow
Received the information at 8 A.M., upon which i registered a case in crime 12/2k U/s, 380 457IPC and took up the investigation.
Sd/-
C.I. of police,
Officer-in-charge of P.S.
Ram Singh.
Content of First Information Report
The F.I.R must contain as for as possible the following point:-
Whether the informant is eye witness or hearsay evidence.
The nature of the cognizable offence.
The name and detailed description of the accused person (his colour, height, approximate age, features, clothing, distinctive marks on his face etc.
The name and identity of the victim of the crime.
The date and time of the occurrence.
The place where the crime was committed.
The motive for committing of the crime.
How the crime was committed (description of the actual occurrence of the crime the part played by the each accused and the weapon used by him)
The name and the address of the witness of the crime.
What traces left behind by the accused, any article belonging to the accused such as footwear, footprint, and finger point. Etc
The description of the culprit should be given as for as possible in detail if the F.I.R is registered on the statement of eye witness.
Essentials of F.I.R.
The word F.I.R has not been define any where under the code of criminal procedure,1973 but it can be define in the fowling way under Section 154 of the code of criminal procedure:-
An information ( given only in writing )
Relating to commission of a cognizable offence.
Given to the officer-in-charge of the police station.
Reduced in writing in the same manner as prescribed in Section 154 of code of criminal procedure 1973
Judicial Approach:-
State of Haryana Vs Chudhari Bhajan Lal
In this case Supreme Court has defined F.I.R. in following way:-
(1) An information (given only in writing)
Relating to commission of a cognizable offence.
Given to the officer-in-charge of the police station.
Reduced in writing in the same manner as prescribed in sec section 154 of code of criminal procedure 1973.
Which is earlier in point of time?
Evidentiary value of the First Information Report
The First Information Report is not a substantive piece of evidence but it can be used for the following purposes:-
(1). It can be used to corroborate under Section 157 of the Indian evidence Act, 1872.
(2). F.I.R can be used to contradict under Section 145 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872
(3). F.I.R. can be used in cross examination at the stage of trial under Section 145 of Evidence Act, 1872.
(4). F.I.R. does not substantive piece of Evidence but it makes substantive piece of evidence when informant dies and the statement become relevant under the Section 32(1) of the Indian evidence Act under the following conditions :-
On the death of the informant it relates the cause of informant’s death
Circumstances of the transaction relating in informant’s death.
If the informant does not die then the informant’s statement become relevant as a conduct under section 8 of the Indian evidence Act, 1872
(5). A non-confessional First Information Report lodged by the accused can be used against him to prove his admission in regard to certain facts under section 21 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (Nisar Ali v. State of U.P. 1957 550 SC)
(6). Certain proportion of confessional First Information Report lodged by the accused can be used against him if they lead towards the discovery of fact within the meaning of section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act 1872. (Agnoo Nagesia v. State of Bihar 1966 CR.L.J 100 SC)
Corroboration:-
According to section 157 of the evidence Act 1872 “In order to corroborate the testimony of a witness, any former statement made by such witness relating to the same fact, at or about the time when the fact took place or before any authority legally competent to investigate the fact, may be proved”.
Contradiction:-
According to Section 145 of the Indian Evidence Act “A witness may be cross examined as to previous statement made by him in writing or reduced in writing and relevant to the matters in the question, without such writing being shown to him or being proved, but if it is indented to contradict him by the writing, his attention must, before the writing can be proved, be called to those part of it which are to be used for the purpose of contradicting him.
F.I.R as a dying declaration:-
First information lodged by a deceased is admissible under section 32(1) of the Evidence Act, as the statement of a person (since deceased) relating to the circumstances of the transaction which resulted in his death. (Kapoor Singh v. Emperor reported in AIR 1930. Lahore page 450)
Can be treated as dying declaration if informant after lodging report to the police dies of his injuries in Munna Raja v. state of Madhya Pradesh AIR 1976 SC 2199)
Munna Raja and Chhuttan were tried by the session Judge, chhatarpur on the charge that about 10 a.m. on April, 30th, 1969 they committed the murder of one Bahadur Singh. Two eye witnesses were turned hostile and learned session judge though that it was unsafe to rely on their testimony. Learned judge was also was not impressed by three dying declarations given by the deceased with the result, the appellant s were acquitted by the session court. The State preferred appeal in High court of Madhya Pradesh, which was allowed by a Division Bench. Thereafter the appellants preferred appeal to the Supreme Court.
In this there were three by Bahadur Singh and the prosecution has placed great reliance on them.
In regard to this Dying Declaration, the judgement of the court of sessions suffers from a patent infirmity in that it wholly overlooks the earliest of these 0f the dying declaration which was made by the deceased soon after the incident in the house of one Barior Singh. The second statement which has been treated as dying declaration Ex-P14 being the F.I.R lodged by the deceased at the police station.
The learned secessions judge probably assumed that since the statement was recorded as the first information report, it could not be treated as dying declaration. In this assumption, he was clearly in error.
After making the statement before the Police, Bahadur Singh succumbed to his injuries and therefore the statement can be treated as a Dying Declaration and is admissible under Section 32(1) of the Evidence Act, 1872.
The maker of the statement is dead and the statement relates to the cause of death.
It was further held that the statement Ex.P-14 by Bahadur Singh at the police station by way of first information report. It is after the information was recorded, and indeed because of it, that the investigation commenced and therefore it was wrong to say that the statement was made to an investigating officer. The station house officer who recorded the statement didn’t posses the capacity of an investigating officer at the time when he recorded the statement.
Cross examination of F.I.R
Before conducting the cross-examination, the original complaint and the printed F.I.R has to be studies carefully. The following points of the F.I.R. must be examined thoroughly for the purpose of cross examination.
(1). The date and time of lodging of the complaint to the police
Officer.
(2). The name of the complainant.
(3). The name of the police officer who recorded the F.I.R.
(4). the date and time of despatch of FIR from the police station to the Magistrate.
(5). the date and time of the receipt of the FIR by the magistrate.
(6). When the informant was given a copy of FIR.
The defence in the cross-examination may vary according to the circumstances, nature and facts of the cases.
The following points are to be examined carefully by the defence during cross examination:-
(1). The delay in lodging complaint.
(2). The delay in recording the F.I.R.
(3). The delay in despatching the FIR by the police officer to the magistrate.
(4). Recording the FIR by an incompetent Police Officer.
(5). The F.I.R was not signed by informant.
(6). The F.I.R recorded on the basis of telephone or telegram massage.
(7). The Substance of the F.I.R was not entered in the General Diary.
(8). The original information given to the police 0fficer was suppressed.
(9). The police officer recorded the F.I.R. after the commencement of the investigation.
(10). Omission of names of the accused, witness place of the occurrence.
(11). F.I.R was vague.
(12). The serious discrepancies between the FIR and the evidence produced by the witness in the court.
(13). Contradiction in the statements of the information in the FIR and later made in Court.
Who can Lodge F.I.R
F.I.R. can be lodged by any of the following persons:-
(1) Aggrieved person or someone on his behalf;
(2) Any person who is aware of the commission of an offence;
(3) Accused himself;
(5) Under an order of Magistrate under section 156(3), of code of criminal procedure when a complaint is forwarded to Officer-in-charge of the police station without taking cognizance.
(6) F.I.R can be lodged by the any person who is aware of the commission of the cognizable offence; he need not be victim of the incident.
(7) If the information is only by a medical Certificate; or Doctor’s intimation about arrival of injured then the officer-in-charge of the police station should enter it in daily dairy and go to the hospital for recording detail statement of injured.
(8) If the information is only hearsay. Then the officer-in-charge of the police station should registered a case only if a person in possession of hearsay subscribe the signature to it and mention the source of his information so that it does not amount to irresponsible rumour. The information must be definite, not vague, authentic, not baseless gossip, or rumour, clearly making out the making of the cognizable offence.
Object of F.I.R
There are following objects of F.I.R. as under:-
To inform Magistrate of the District Superintendent of police, who are responsible for the peace and safety of the offence reported at the police station.
To make known to the Judicial Officer whom the case is ultimately tried, what are tried, what are the facts given out immediately after the occurrence and on what material the investigation commenced
To safeguard the accused against subsequent variations or additions.
To set the criminal law in motion, this is form the point of view of the informant
To obtain information about the alleged criminal activity so as to able to take suitable steps for tracing and bringing to book the guilty party, this is from the point of view of investigating officer.
Apex Court on the object of FIR
The Apex Court in Sheikh Haseeb @ Tabaraq v. State of Bihar (1972(4) SCC 773), the three Judges Bench had observed on the object, available and use of FIR as under:-
“The principal object of FIR from the point of view of the informant is to set the criminal law into motion and the point of view of the investigating authorities has to obtain information about the alleged criminal activity, so as to be able to take suitable step for trace and bringing to the book the guilty party. The FIR, we may point out, does not constitute substantive evidence though its importance is conveying the earliest information regarding the occurrence cannot be doubted. It can, however only be used as a previous statement for the purpose of either corroborating its maker under section 157 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 or in contradicting him under section 145 of the Act. It can be used for the purpose of corroborating or contradicting other witness”.
Delay in FIR
Delay lodging of F.I.R can be of three types:-
(1). Delay in lodging F.I.R. by informant;
(2). Delay in lodging F.I.R by officer-in-charge of the police station;
(3). Delay in despatching the F.I.R to the Magistrate.
Delay in lodging the F.I.R by Informant:-
If delay has occurred in lodging the F.I.R by informant, the officer investigating case should obtain explanation from the informant with regard to such delay and incorporate the same in the statement of the witness. If this is done, no adverse presumption against the prosecution would arise against the prosecution case.
Dilip Singh v. State of Punjab, 1953 Cr.L.J 1465 (SC)
In this case it was held that delay in lodging First information report quite often result in embellishment which is a creature of afterthought. On account of delay the report not only gets bereft of the advantages, danger creeps in of the introduction of coloured version, exaggerated or connected story as the result of deliberation and consultation. It is therefore, essential that delay in lodging of the first information report should be satisfactorily examined.
