DR.

RAM MANOHAR LOHIYA NATIONAL LAW

UNIVERSITY, LUCKNOW

CRIMINAL PROCEDURE CODE

PROJECT

TOPIC: FIR AND ITS EVIDENTIARY VALUE

Submitted to- Submitted by-

Dr. Prem Kumar Gautam Tulika Gupta

Assistant Professor of Law Roll no.-150

Dr. Ram Manohar Lohiya National law B.A.LL.B. (Hons.) 3 rd

year

University, Lucknow V semester

1
 ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

“Words can never convey what deeds have done.”

Writing a project is never a single man’s job. I am overwhelmed in all humbleness and
grateful to acknowledge my depth to all those who have helped me to put ideas, well above
the level of simplicity and into something concrete.

I am very thankful to my criminal law professor Dr Prem Kumar Gautam for his valuable
help. He was always there to show the right track when I needed his help. With the help of
his valuable suggestions, guidance and encouragement, I was able to complete this project. I
would also like to thank my friends, who often helped and gave me support at critical
junctures during the making of this project.

I hope you will appreciate the hard work that I have put in this project.

2
 TABLE OF CONTENTS

INTRODUCTION......................................................................................................................4
CONDITIONS OF F.I.R............................................................................................................6
DUTY OF THE POLICE TO RECORD F.I.R..........................................................................9
DELAY IN LODGING F.I.R...................................................................................................11
EVIDENTIARY VALUE OF F.I.R.........................................................................................14
CONCLUSION........................................................................................................................17
REFERENCES.........................................................................................................................18

3
 INTRODUCTION

There are three stages through which an offence passes:

 Investigation,
 Inquiry, and
 Trial
Out of these three stages, investigation is a function performed by police alone. According
to Section 2(h) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, 1 “investigation” includes all the
proceedings under the Code for the collection of evidence conducted by a police officer or by
any person (other than a magistrate) who is authorized by a magistrate.
Police can start with the investigation procedure once it receives information as to
the commission of a cognizable offence. Information of a cognizable offence can reach the
police through three channels:
 First Information Report (F.I.R.)
 Credible information, and
 Personal knowledge.
Out of these three channels, information by way of F.I.R. is the most common channel. A
first information report means the information, by whomsoever given, to the officer in charge
of a police station, in relation to the commission of a cognizable offence and which is first in
point of time and on the strength of which the investigation into that offence is commenced.2
The words ‘first information report’ have a legal import. Nowhere in CrPC have these words
been used. Section 154 of CrPC gives the concept of F.I.R. It is the earliest report made to

the police officer with a view to his taking action in the matter.3
Object
The principle object of the F.I.R. from the point of view of the informant is to set the criminal
law in motion and from the point of view of the investigating authorities is to obtain
information about the alleged criminal activity so as to be able to take suitable steps to trace
and bring to book the guilty.4

1
Criminal Procedure Code 1973, s 2(h).
2
State of Bombay v Rusy Mistry AIR 1960 SC 391.
3
Batuk Lal, The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, (2nd Ed, Central Law Agency, Allahabad, 2010) page 226.
4
Ratanlal & Dhirajlal, The Code of Criminal Procedure, (19th Ed, LexisNexis Butterworths Wadhwa Nagpur
Ltd, Gurgaon, 2010) page 474.

4
The purpose of recording the F.I.R. is to put into writing the statement of the informant
before his memory fails or before he gets time and opportunity to embellish it. However, the
F.I.R. is not a condition precedent to the setting in motion of a criminal investigation.5
The F.I.R. cannot be said to be the last word of the prosecution because it need not be made
by an eye-witness nor is required to give full details. It merely marks the beginning of the
investigation and its value must accordingly depend on the circumstances of each case,
including the nature of the crime, the position of the informant and opportunity he had of
witnessing the whole or part of the offence. It need not necessarily be given by a person who
has first-hand knowledge of the incident; hence, it cannot be rejected as F.I.R. merely
because it is based on hearsay.6
The F.I.R. cannot serve as a conclusive test for determining the question whether there should
be one or several trials of the several offences disclosed in the F.I.R. The matter has to be
determined on the basis of the result of the investigation in the light of the provisions of the
Code.
The objects of FIR can be summarized as follows –
a) To set the criminal law in motion.
b) To inform the magistrate of the district and the District Superintendent of the Police who
are responsible for peace and safety of the district about the offence reported at the station.
c) To inform the judicial officers before whom the case is ultimately tried about the facts
given out immediately after the occurrence and the materials on the basis of which the
investigation was initiated.
d) To safeguard the accused against subsequent variations or additions.
e) To obtain information about the alleged criminal activity in order to take suitable action for
tracing and bringing the guilty party.

5
DD Basu, Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, Vol 2 (4th Ed, LexisNexis Butterworths Wadhwa Ltd, Nagpur,
2010) page 803.
6
Bhavanbhai Premjibhai Vaghela v State of Gujarat

5
 CONDITIONS OF F.I.R.

The following conditions should be satisfied to constitute an information as First Information

Report within the meaning of Sec.154 (1) of CrPC:
1) It must be the information relating to the commission of a cognizable offence.
What Section 154 requires is that information must be in relation to “the commission of a
cognizable offence”. A “cognizable offence” has been defined in Section 2(c) of CrPC as
“Cognizable offence means an offence for which, and “cognizable case” means a case in
which, a police officer may, in accordance with the First Schedule or under any other law for
the time being in force, arrest without warrant.”7
It does not require that the information must give details of all elements of the offence, or the
weapon used or the names of the witnesses or even of the accused, if the particulars given are
sufficient for appreciation of the evidence.8
In order to constitute F.I.R., the informant’s statement must not be vague or indefinite but
must give sufficient materials to the police to start the investigation on it.9
But for instance, in case under Prevention of Atrocities against SC and ST Act, 1989 or the
Civil Rights Protection Act, 1955, the caste of the complainant or/and the accused is not
given, the F.I.R. is liable to be quashed.10
2) It must be given to an Officer-in-Charge of a police station.
It was held in Damodar v. State of Rajasthan11, that if the information was conveyed to
police on telephone and DO entry was made, it will not constitute an FIR even if the
information disclosed commission of cognizable offence.
3) It must be put into writing. If it is already written, it has to be signed by the person giving
it.
4) If it is orally made, it must be taken down in writing and read over to the informant.
5) The substance of the information shall be entered in the prescribed register (General Diary
or Station Diary).
A Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court in Lalita Kumari v. Govt. of UP12 issued the
following Guidelines regarding the registration of FIR:
7
Criminal Procedure Code 1973, s 2(c).
8
DD Basu, Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, Vol 2 (4th Ed, LexisNexis Butterworths Wadhwa Ltd, Nagpur,
2010) page 807.
9
ibid, page 808.
10
Manohar M Kulkarni v State of Maharashtra 2005 CrLJ 2650.
11
Damodar v State of Rajasthan AIR 2003 SC 4414.
12
Lalita Kumari v Government of UP AIR 2012 SC 1515.

6
(i) Registration of FIR is mandatory under Section 154 of the Code, if the information
discloses commission of a cognizable offence and no preliminary inquiry is permissible in
such a situation.
(ii) If the information received does not disclose a cognizable offence but indicates the
necessity for an inquiry, a preliminary inquiry may be conducted only to ascertain whether
cognizable offence is disclosed or not.
(iii) If the inquiry discloses the commission of a cognizable offence, the FIR must be
registered. In cases where preliminary inquiry ends in closing the complaint, a copy of the
entry of such closure must be supplied to the first informant forthwith and not later than one
week. It must disclose reasons in brief for closing the complaint and not proceeding further.
(iv) The police officer cannot avoid his duty of registering offence if cognizable offence is
disclosed. Action must be taken against erring officers who do not register the FIR if
information received by him discloses a cognizable offence.
(v) The scope of preliminary inquiry is not to verify the veracity or otherwise of the
information received but only to ascertain whether the information reveals any cognizable
offence.
(vi) As to what type and in which cases preliminary inquiry is to be conducted will depend on
the facts and circumstances of each case. The category of cases in which preliminary inquiry
may be made are as under:
(a) Matrimonial disputes/ family disputes
(b)Commercial offences
(c) Medical negligence cases
(d)Corruption cases
(e) Cases where there is abnormal delay/laches in initiating criminal prosecution, for
example, over 3 months delay in reporting the matter without satisfactorily explaining the
reasons for delay. The aforesaid are only illustrations and not exhaustive of all conditions
which may warrant preliminary inquiry.
(vii) While ensuring and protecting the rights of the accused and the complainant, a
preliminary inquiry should be made time bound and, in any case, it should not exceed 7 days.
The fact of such delay and the causes of it must be reflected in the General Diary entry.
(viii) Since the General Diary/Station Diary/Daily Diary is the record of all information
received in a police station, we direct that all information relating to cognizable offences,
whether resulting in registration of FIR or leading to an inquiry, must be mandatorily and

7
meticulously reflected in the said Diary and the decision to conduct a preliminary inquiry
must also be reflected, as mentioned above.
In the case of State of U.P. v. Naresh and Ors., 13 the Supreme Court observed that, “It is
settled legal proposition that F.I.R. is not an encyclopaedia65 of the entire case. It may not
and need not contain all the details. Naming of the accused therein may be important but not
naming of the accused in F.I.R. may not be a ground to doubt the contents thereof.”14
Thus, although ideally an F.I.R. should answer twenty-four W’s, e.g. which offence has been
committed, where was it committed, who committed it, etc. On this depends the evidentiary
value of the F.I.R. But the most important question is which offence has been committed and
if it is a prima facie case of a cognizable offence and the informant mentions that a
cognizable offence has been committed, then it is a valid F.I.R.

13
State of UP v Naresh and Ors AIR 2011 RCR (Criminal) 364.
14
ibid, para 26.

8
 DUTY OF THE POLICE TO RECORD F.I.R.

When a report of a cognizable case is made at a police station, it has to be made to the officer
in charge of the police station. The meaning of the term ‘officer in charge of the police
station’ is as given in Section 2(o).15 A report made to a police officer not incharge of police
station is not F.I.R. But Section 154 does not create any bar to the making of a report to a
senior officer.16

Refusal to record F.I.R. on the ground that the place of occurrence falls outside the territorial
jurisdiction of the police station is not correct. The proper way is to record the F.I.R. and then
forward to the police station having jurisdiction over the case. Refusal to record F.I.R. on the
ground that the information received is not credible is not proper. Officer in charge of police
station has no option but to record F.I.R. on receipt of information of the commission of a
cognizable offence.17 If he refuses to record such information it amounts to dereliction of
duty. If he fails to perform his mandatory duty, the High Court by a writ of mandamus can
direct him to register the F.I.R. and start investigating the case.18

This object will be defeated if the police officer in charge of the police station refuses to
record the information. Therefore Section 154(3) provides a remedy in such a situation.
According to this provision, if any person is aggrieved by a refusal on the part of a police
officer in charge of a police station to record the information, he may send by post the
substance of such information in writing to the Superintendent of Police concerned. If the
Superintendent is satisfied that the information discloses the commission of a 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 Code. Section 154(3) further
provides that such subordinate police officer investigating the offence shall have all the
powers of an officer in charge of police station in relation to that offence.19

It has also been clarified by the Supreme Court that since the word ‘information’ in Section
154 is not qualified as ‘reasonable’ it is the duty of the police to register the information
under Section 154. In the celebrated judgment of State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal 20, it was
15
Criminal Procedure Code 1973, s 2(o).
16
Batuk Lal, The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, (2nd Ed, Central Law Agency, Allahabad, 2010) page 227.
17
ibid, page 228-229.
18
DD Basu, Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, Vol 2 (4th Ed, LexisNexis Butterworths Wadhwa Ltd, Nagpur,
2010) page 817.
19
RV Kelkar, Criminal Procedure, (5th Reprinted Ed., Eastern Book Co., Lucknow, 2011) page 124-125.
20
State of Haryana v Bhajan Lal 1992 CrLJ 527 (SC).

9
decided that when an information is lodged as to the commission of a cognizable offence
before the officer in charge of the police station, he has no other alternative but to register the
same in a prescribed form and initiate a case. Even if such information of cognizable offence
is lodged against a high police official, it is also the duty of the officer in charge of the
concerned police station to reduce the information to writing, read it over to the informant,
get the signature of the informant thereon and enter the substance thereof in the diary.21

21
A Nallasivam v State 1995 CrLJ 2754.

10
 DELAY IN LODGING F.I.R.

The object of Section 154 is to obtain early information of an alleged criminal activity, to
record the circumstances and the facts before there is time for them to be embellished or
forgotten. The first information report should be made promptly. The reason for insisting
upon lodging of F.I.R. without delay to obtain the earlier information of the circumstance of
commission of offence, the nature of the accused, the parts played by them, the weapons used
as also the names of the eye-witnesses. Delay in first information report is an important
circumstance and it must be satisfactorily explained, and if the delay is not so explained, the
case becomes doubtful.22
In the case of Amar Singh v. Balwinder Singh,23 the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that,
“There is no hard and fast rule that any delay in lodging the FIR would automatically render
the prosecution case doubtful. It necessarily depends on facts and circumstances of each
case.”
Law has not fixed any time for filling F.I.R., as such a delayed F.I.R. is not illegal. 24 On an
inordinate, unreasonable and unexplained delay in lodging of the F.I.R., arises a presumption
in law that the F.I.R. is based on a false or fabricated story or afterthought. Although, if there
is no unreasonable delay, it does not give rise to any simultaneous presumption that the F.I.R.
is true. As unreasonable delay adversely affects the evidentiary value of the F.I.R., any delay
must be properly explained.
WHEN DELAY IS NOT FATAL?
1) Delay is Sexual Assault cases
Delay in lodging of F.I.R. in case of sexual assaults cannot be equated with the case
involving other offences. There are several matters which weigh in the mind of the
prosecutrix and her family members before coming to the police station to lodge a complaint.
In a tradition bound society, particularly rural India, it would be quite unsafe to throw out the
prosecution case merely on the ground of delay in lodging the FIR.25
In State of Rajasthan v. Om Prakash,26 a child was raped. It was held by the court that it was
not unnatural for the brother of the victim to wait for the arrival of the elders of the house and

22
Batuk Lal, The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, (2nd Ed, Central Law Agency, Allahabad, 2010) page 232.
23
Amar Singh v Balwinder Singh AIR 2003 SC 1164.
24
Ratanlal & Dhirajlal, The Code of Criminal Procedure, (19th Ed, LexisNexis Butterworths Wadhwa Nagpur
Ltd, Gurgaon, 2010) page 477.
25
Batuk Lal, The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, (2nd Ed, Central Law Agency, Allahabad, 2010) page 233.
26
State of Rajasthan v Om Prakash AIR 2002 SC 2235.

11
to lodge a report after the decision of the family members because reputation of the family
and career of the girl was involved.
In Mekala Raja Reddy v. State of A.P.,27 the victim was forcibly taken to a field on
30.08.1992 while she was returning home in the evening after making bidi as a laborer. Her
moth was gaugged, therefore, she could not cry for help. She was threatened to be killed if
she would not do sexual intercourse with the accused persons. She stood these and then she
was forcibly raped by the accused persons one after another. She was threatened not to
inform the incident to anybody. She did not reveal the incident to anybody. The incident
came to light due to lose talk by the accused in the village. When the police came to know
about the incident, they came to the village and questioned her and took her to the police
station. There the statement of the victim was recorded at the police station on 26.12.1992,
i.e., after four months. It was also held the delay in lodging F.I.R. was properly and
satisfactorily explained.
2) Fatal Injuries to the Victim
When any victim gets seriously injured and needs immediate medical care, then the first
interest of the family members of such a person is to save the life of the victim. In such a
case, if there is delay in the lodging of the F.I.R., it would not put any adverse presumption
on the prosecution case.
In the case of Bhajan Singh v. State of Haryana,28 the deceased was grievously injured. The
father of the deceased person first shifted his son to the hospital and only after that did he
lodge a F.I.R. The delay stood satisfactorily explained.
3) Cases of Mental Shock
There is also a possibility that a person may go into mental shock by witnessing the gruesome
nature of the crime. In such a situation also, there can be a delay in lodging of F.I.R.
In the case of Gurdev Raj v. State of Punjab,29 there was a quarrel between the appellant, his
wife and mother-in-law. The appellant picked up an iron rod lying in the room and
administered blows on the head of his mother-in-law. She died at about 6.30 p.m. The two
other ladies present in the house had raised hue and cry during the incident but no one came
to their rescue. The accused ran away. Both the ladies being frightened left the dead body in
the house, locked it and went to inform the husband of the deceased at Amritsar from Taran
Taran. He was not at home and came back quite late in the night. In the morning, the wife of

27
Mekala Raja Reddy v State of AP 2002 CrLJ 3407 (AP).
28
Bhajan Singh v State of Haryana 2011 (3) RCR (Criminal) 641.
29
Gurdev Raj v State of Punjab 2008 CrLJ 382 (SC).

12
the appellant and her father went to the police station at Taran Taran. There was not any
unexplained delay on the part of the prosecution in lodging F.I.R.
In the case of Raja Gounder v. State of Tamil Nadu,30 the accused attacked and brutally
killed his brother in front of the deceased’s wife. She was the only eye-witness. Wife was in
great distress and had first sent information to her parents in their village thereafter left for
police station to lodge F.I.R. The delay of 13 hours was considered to be perfectly compatible
with behaviour of a widow witnessing such an incident.
4) Others
A three judge’s bench of Hon’ble Supreme Court in P. Rajagopal v State of Tamil Nadu has
recently enunciated that the delay may be condoned if the complainant appears to be reliable
and without any motive for implicating the accused falsely.31
The Supreme Court considered its earlier judgments in Apren Joseph v. State of Kerala32;
Mukesh v. State (NCT of Delhi)33 and observed as “Normally, the Court may reject the case
of the prosecution in case of inordinate delay in lodging the first information report because
of the possibility of concoction of evidence by the prosecution. However, if the delay is
satisfactorily explained, the Court will decide the matter on merits without giving much
importance to such delay. The Court is duty bound to determine whether the explanation
afforded is plausible enough given the facts and circumstances of the case. The delay may be
condoned if the complainant appears to be reliable and without any motive for implicating the
accused falsely”.
Ultimately, the Court held as “Moreover, no material has been brought to our notice by the
defence to prove that the delay in filing the F.I.R. was with the intention of false implication.
Thus, the explanation given by PW1 for the delay remains untainted. In our considered
opinion, looking at the totality of the facts and circumstances, the Trial Court and the High
Court were justified in condoning the delay and in concluding that the said delay was not
vital to the case of the prosecution”.

30
Raja Gounder v State of Tamil Nadu 2011 (1) RCR (Criminal) 614.
31
P Rajagopal v State of Tamil Nadu AIR 2019 SC 2866.
32
Apren Joseph v State of Kerala (1973) 3 SCC 114.
33
Mukesh v State (NCT of Delhi) (2017) 6 SCC 1.

13
 EVIDENTIARY VALUE OF F.I.R.
F.I.R. is a vital and important piece of evidence as it contains the first version of the incident.
However, it cannot be treated as substantive piece of evidence as it is neither recorded on
oath nor tested by cross examination. But when the informant is called as witness in the Court
his former statement (F.I.R.) can be used both for corroborating and contradicting his
testimony as per Section 157, Section 161 and Section 145 of the Indian Evidence Act. But it
cannot be used as evidence against the informant as it is hit by Section 25 of the Evidence
Act. F.I.R. could be used for corroborating the informant as per Section 157 and Section 161
of the Evidence Act but it could not be used for corroborating other prosecution witnesses or
prosecution case in general. F.I.R. could be used for contradicting the informant as per
Section 145 of the Evidence Act but for that firstly, the attention of the informant must be
drawn to the relevant portions where the contradiction occurs. Secondly, explanation should
be invited and only then defence can rely upon the contradiction. F.I.R. can be used to
contradict only the maker of informant who lodged the F.I.R. under sections-145 and 155 of
Evidence Act, but not the other witnesses.34
If F.I.R. is made by accused himself then it could be used as per the normal rules of evidence
unless it is in the nature of a confession, as then it will be hit by Section 25 of the Evidence
Act. The position of such case has been discussed in detail in Aghnoo Nagesia v. State of
Bihar35:
1) Such an F.I.R. is not inadmissible in evidence.
2) If the information is non-confessional then it could be admissible under Section 21.36
3) If it is confessional in nature then it will become inadmissible except the portion
which will come under Section 27 of the Evidence Act.
4) In this case, Supreme Court for the first time clarified that F.I.R. will be admissible in
evidence as a whole not in parts but with a rider that in case the non-confessional part
has no connection with the confessional part then the former will be relevant under
Section 18 and Section 21.
F.I.R. by an accused cannot be treated as evidence against the co-accused.
1) F.I.R. can be used by the informant to refresh his memory under Section 159 of the
Evidence Act.

34
Nisar Ali v State of UP 1957 CrLJ 550 SC.
35
Aghnoo Nagesia v State of Bihar AIR 1966 SC 119.
36
Nisar Ali v State of UP 1957 550 SC.

14
 2) F.I.R. can be used for impeaching the credit of the informant under Section 155 of the
Evidence Act.37
3) It can also be used for proving the conduct of the informant as per Section 8 of the
Evidence Act.
4) F.I.R. can be used to identify the accused, witnesses, place and time of occurrence as
per Section 9 of Evidence Act.
5) In certain circumstances, it could also be used as per Section 11 of the Evidence Act.
F.I.R. cannot be used as a primary evidence of the truth of its contents as it cannot be
substituted for evidence given on oath. Therefore, F.I.R. itself cannot lead to the conviction
of the accused. But in certain circumstances F.I.R. becomes substantive piece of evidence:
 Under Section 32 of the Evidence Act
 Under Section 6 of the Evidence Act as res-gestae
 Under Section 160 of the Evidence Act.
On the basis of the above, it can be concluded that normally F.I.R. is not a substantive piece
of evidence but is a public document as per Section 74 of the Evidence Act and its certified
copy could be given as per Section 79 of the Evidence Act. However, it becomes a
substantive piece of evidence under certain circumstances but S.H.O. cannot give copy of
F.I.R. to the accused unless the police report is ready or else, he would be liable under
Section 27 of the Police Act, 1861.
F.I.R. and Dying Declaration
In case of death of the informant, FIR can be used as substantive evidence if it relates to the
cause of death of the informant or the circumstances of the transaction resulting in the
informant’s death within the meaning of Sec.32 (1) of Evidence Act.38 In no other case FIR
can be used as a substantive evidence. FIR lodged by the deceased is admissible U/s-32(1) as
the statement of a person since deceased relating to the circumstances of the transaction
which resulted in his death.39
A FIR can be treated as a dying declaration if the informant dies of his injuries after lodging
the report to the police.40 However, if the complainant who had been belaboured died a
natural death and not because of the injuries caused to him, Sec.32(1) is not applicable.41

37
Shanker v State of UP AIR 1975 SC 757.
38
Damodar Prasad v State of UP AIR 1975 SC 757.
39
Kapoor Singh v Emperor AIR 1930 Lahore 450.
40
Munna Raja v State of MP AIR 1976 SC 2199.
41
Umrao v State of MP AIR 1961 MP 45.

15
When an FIR is lodged by the deceased clearly implicating the accused and containing the
details of the incident, the same could be used as a dying declaration. 42 If the informant
disappears after filling an FIR and there is no proof of his death, it is not admissible.
In Sukhar v. State of U.P.43 case the injured died during the trial. The FIR lodged by him was
treated as a dying declaration but the prosecution made no effort to establish the cause of his
death or the connection between the death and injuries in question. The time of his death was
unknown. The statement in FIR was held to be not admissible as dying declaration.
Death of the Informant and Evidentiary Value of F.I.R.
There is no law which provides that the FIR can’t be taken into consideration on the death of
the informant. The case needs to be proved on the basis of evidence collected by the
prosecution during the course of investigation. FIR is not an evidence in a case, it is only a
piece of informant with the police records with which the system comes into motion.
FIR is only used for corroboration or contradiction if the complainant is examined. In a case
where the first informant died before he could depose in the court, the purpose of
corroborating or contradicting its contents by the person, would not be possible. In view of
this, the accused could not cross examine the first informant and the other pieces of evidence
which are produced in the court can be looked into. As the FIR is not a substantial piece of
evidence, it should not have any effect on the prosecution case.44
In the case of Hakirat Singh v. State of Punjab45 the Supreme Court held that non-
examination of the complainant on account of his death could not be factual on its own to the
prosecution case and it will depend on the facts of each case. If the prosecution story as
revealed by the witnesses in the court is directly contradictory to the contents of FIR, it may
have one effect and on the other hand if the contents of FIR are in conformity with the
evidence during the trial, it may have all together a different effect.

42
Pancham Yadawa v State of UP 1994 CrLJ 848 (All).
43
Sukhar v State of UP (1999) 9 SCC 507.
44
EJ Goud & others v State of AP 2004 (2) ALD CRL241 (AP).
45
Hakirat Singh v State of Punjab AIR 1997 SC 323.

16
 CONCLUSION

It may be submitted that from the viewpoints of law of Evidence, FIR has a great significant
role in each criminal litigation. FIR, being an information first in point of time, is a valuable
piece of evidence in any criminal trial either for corroborating evidence or for contradicting
witnesses. Therefore, it is necessary that FIR must be recorded in all circumstances especially
where the person has arrived in the police station to lodge an FIR against a particular crime.
If a FIR is duly recorded, it may provide a valuable evidence in a criminal case. Such
information should be lodged with the police as soon as a person comes to know as to the
commission of an offence. Apart from prevention of crimes and maintenance of law and
order in the society, FIR may also lead to successful conclusion of a criminal trial.

17
 REFERENCES

 Apurva Rathee, “Evidentiary value of First Information Report (F.I.R.)”

<https://lawschoolnotes.wordpress.com/2017/04/23/evidentiary-value-of-first-
information-report-f-i-r/>.
 Debaditiya Roy, FIR: Indian Evidence Act 1872,
http://www.legalservicesindia.com/article/1578/FIR:-Indian-Evidence-Act,-
1872.html>.
 “Delay in lodging FIR and motive of false implication, read SC judgment”
<https://www.latestlaws.com/index.php/latest-news/delay-in-lodging-fir-and-motive-
of-false-implication-read-sc-judgment/>.
 http://www.legalserviceindia.com/Criminallaws/fir.htm

18