Unit 2: Investigation

Proceedings
Investigation
Section 2(h) of CrPC has defined the term “investigation” as: “All the
proceedings under this 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 in this behalf.” In other words, it refers to systematic and
procedural way of collection, collation and comprehension of facts pertaining
to a crime.

Initiation of investigation proceedings:

 Section 154 : Information in cognizable cases.
 Section 155 : Information as to non-cognizable cases and investigation of
such cases.
 Section156: Police officer’s power to investigate cognizable case.
 Section 157: Procedure for investigation.
Various Processes involved in Investigation
• Proceeding to the crime scene [section 157(1)]
1 • Ascertainment of facts & circumstances of the case.

EFECTING ARREST OF ACCUSED/SUSPECTED PERSON:

• Arrest without Warrant [Sections 41 to 45, Section 60A, Section 151 - Ch. V]
2 • Arrest with Warrant [Sections 70 to 81 - Ch. VI]

• CONDUCTING SEARCH:
(i) Search of a Place with Warrant [Ss. 93, 100]
3 (ii) Search of a Place without Warrant [Sec. 165, also read Sec. 166]
• SEIZURE OF CERTAIN PROPERTY [Section 102]

• Interrogation /examination of witnesses, accused, victims etc. & recording of

4 their statements [sections 160 to 163]

• On Completion of Investigation if Evidences against Accused Person not

Sufficient Officer in charge of P.O. can submit final report/closure report/ khatma
5 challan to Magistrate competent to take Cognizance [Section 169]

• After the Completion of Investigation if there are Sufficient Evidences against the
Accused then the Officer in charge of P.O. shall file Police Report/ Chargesheet/
6 Challan before Magistrate competent to take Cognizance [Sec. 173]
 IO sends copy FIR to JM & Initiate
By Lodging FIR u/s 154 Investigation u/s 156 & 157(1) and
of CrPC. submits Police Report u/s 173.
[Cognizable
Offences] Foreclose Investigation and inform
Magistrate & Informant [u/s157(2)]

May forward the complaint to

By filing a criminal police for investigation [u/s156(3)]
Methods of complaint before a or may conduct an Inquiry. Or may
Initiating a Judicial Magistrate u/s dismiss the complaint.
Criminal 200 r/w 190 (1)(a) of
Case CrPC May take cognizance and issue
process u/s 204 of CrPC
By giving information
Police Officer record the info. And
as to Non-cognizable send the informant to Magistrate
Offence to the Police.

by Police [u/s 157(1)]

Suo Motto Initiation
By Magistrate [u/s 190(1)(c)]
Section 154 : Information in cognizable
cases.
 One of the method of initiating the a criminal case is by lodging Information
report disclosing commission of cognizable offence with the police officer
under section 154 of CrPC. This Information Report in general is known as FIR
(First Information Report).
 FIR is not defined by CrPC, but Section 154 lays down the procedure for
lodging a criminal case with police officer in case of cognizable offences
as against the Complaint [defined under Section 2(d)] to be given to
judicial magistrate.
 “a first information report” refers to a report of cognizable offence made by
any person first in point of time to an officer-in-charge of a police station to
initiate legal action against some person.
 Section 154 CrPC a person can report only of cognizable offence to the
police, whereas under Section 2(d) CrPC a person may report to a
Magistrate commission of any offence, whether cognizable or non-
cognizable.
Section 154 : Essential ingredients of FIR

 Information- There should be information. Mere information is sufficient.

There is no need of allegation. It can be provided by any person including
victims, accused and third person. Evidentiary value of FIR is changed
according to informant, contents and timing of registration of FIR.
 Cognizable Offence - That information must be related to commission of
cognizable offences. Section 2 (c) defines cognizable offence.
 Oral or written: Such information may be given either orally or written form.
If it is given orally to an officer in charge of a police station, shall be
reduced to writing by him or under his direction, and be read over to the
informant;
 Recording Authority: Officer in charge of a police station and woman
police officer or any woman officer –
 It must be made to the officer in charge of a police station.
Section 154 : Essential ingredients of FIR
 If the informant is the victim (woman) of acid attack, outrage of modesty, rape
or word intended to insult the modesty of a woman then such information shall
be recorded, by a woman police officer or any woman officer.
 If the victim is temporarily or permanently mentally or physically disabled, then
such information shall be recorded by a police officer, at the residence of the
person seeking to report such offence or at a convenient place of such person’s
choice, in the presence of an interpreter or a special educator, as the case may
be. The recording of such information shall be video graphed.
 Signature of informant: Every such information, whether given in writing or
reduced to writing (oral information) as aforesaid, shall be signed by the
person giving it (informant);
 Entering of substance in book: The substance the information shall be
entered in a book to be kept by such officer in such form as the State
Government may prescribe in this behalf. ‘General Diary’ has been
prescribed for this purpose. [Madhu Bala v. Suresh Kumar (1997)]
Whether…
 reasonableness or credibility of any information relating to cognizable
offence is a condition precedent for registration of an FIR?
In Bhajan Lal v. State of Haryana, 1992, Supreme Court “reasonableness or
credibility of the said information is not a condition precedent for the registration of
a case.”
 delay per se in lodging an FIR effect credibility of FIR? Delay in lodging FIR
shall not affect credibility of FIR and also is not a ground to disbelieve
prosecution case, if there are justified reasons to explain such delay.
In State of Himachal Pradesh v. Gyan Chand, 2001 SC observed that “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 possibility of embellishment in 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.”
Whether…
 telephonic information if reduced to writing, can be treated as F.I.R. ? SC in
Ramsingh Bavaji Jadeja v. State of Gujarat,1994, “If the telephonic message is
cryptic in nature and the officer in charge proceeds to the place of occurrence on
the basis of that information to find out the details of the nature of the offence itself,
then it cannot be said that the information, which had been received by him on
telephone, shall be deemed to be First Information Report. The object and purpose
of giving such telephonic message is not to lodge the First Information Report, but to
request the officer in charge of the police station to reach the place of
occurrence.”
State of A.P. v. V.V. Panduranga Rao,2009, “if the information given on telephone is
not cryptic and on the basis of that information, the officer in charge, is prima facie
satisfied about the commission of a cognizable offence and he proceeds from the
police station, after recording such information, to investigate such offence then
that piece of information will constitute F.I.R.”
Tapinder Singh v. State of Punjab, (1970), “where an anonymous telephonic
message neither discloses names of the accused nor the commission of a
cognizable offence, it cannot be treated as FIR. The mere fact that this information
was the first in point of time does not by itself clothe it with the character of First
Information Report.”
 Kinds of FIR:
 In Lalita Kumari v. Govt. of U.P. and Ors,2013, the Supreme Court said that the
Code contemplates two kinds of FIRs namely;

 FIR under section 154 (1) and

 FIR under section 157(1).

Kinds of FIR
(Informant)

Victim Accused Third Person Police authority Court (S. 156

[Section 154] [Section 154] [Section 154] (Suo motu) (3), r/w s. 482)
[Section 157 r/w
Section 36
Kinds of FIR:
 Jurisdiction – Every police station has own territorial jurisdiction. If cognizable
offence is committed within territorial jurisdiction then FIR is registered and it
contains date, time and place of occurrence, serial number etc.
 Zero FIR - Zero FIR can be registered by any Officer in charge of Police Station
even he has no jurisdiction to investigate the offence. In such FIR serial number is
put Zero and such FIR is forwarded to competent investigating police station.
CrPC has no express mention of Zero FIR but Section 173 of BNSS mentioned Zero
FIR.
In case of Aasaram Bapu Rape case, rape was committed in Jodhpur, Rajasthan. FIR was
lodged in Kamla Market Police Station, New Delhi. This was the ‘Zero FIR’. It was
transferred to Jodhpur for investigation.

FIR
Section 154 (1)]
[Jurisdictional FIR]
Kinds of FIR
(Jurisdiction)
Zero FIR
Section 154 (1)
[Free Jurisdictional FIR]
Mandatory Registration of FIR and
Preliminary Inquiry: (Crux of Lalitha Case)
MCMCD Cases:
Registration of FIR is  M- Matrimonial
disputes/family disputes
Mandatory
Cognizable  C- Commercial offences
offence  M- Medical negligence
cases
Exception [MCMCD  C- Corruption cases
Cases]  D- abnormal delay/laches
in initiating criminal
prosecution
FIR Registration of
Information is Cognizable FIR is
Inquiry must
not disclosing Mandatory
be completed
cognizable
in 7 days
offence but Conclusion
(15days as Copy of such
indicates the
modified in closure and its
necessity for
2014) Non- reason must be
inquiry
cognizable supplied within
one
weeki.e.7days
 Evidentiary Value of FIR
Victim

Sec.32 (1) (IEA) Sec. 6 (IEA) Sec. 8 (IEA) Sec. 145 (IEA) Sec. 157 (IEA)
(Allowed) (Allowed) (Allowed) (Allowed) (Allowed)

Indian Evidence Act:

• Sec. 6 : Res Gestae - Relevancy of facts
Third Person (If the informant is called as a forming part of same transaction.
witness at the time of trial.
• Sec. 8 : Motive, preparation and
previous or subsequent conduct
• Sec.32 (1) : Dying declaration
Sec. 6 (IEA) Sec. 145 (IEA) Sec. 157 (IEA)
(Allowed) (Allowed) (Allowed) • Sec. 145 : Cross-examination as to
previous statements in writing.
• Sec. 157 : . Former statements of witness
may be proved to corroborate later
testimony as to same fact.
 Evidentiary Value of FIR
Section 145,IEA
[position not clear]
Sec.315 of CrPC
(Allowed)
Section 157, IEA
[Allowed]
Sec. 8 (IEA)
(Allowed)
Informant is
accused
Sec. 21 (IEA)
(Allowed)
Section 145 [Not
allowed]
Sec. 25 (IEA)
(Allowed)
Section 157
Indian Evidence Act: [ Allowed]

• Sec. 21: Proof of admissions against persons making them, and by or on their behalf.
• Sec 25 : Confession to police-officer not to be proved.
Sec.315 of CrPC: Accused person to be competent witness.
Evidentiary Value of FIR:
 In Aghnoo Nagesia v. State of Bihar 1965, Supreme Court observed
“Section 154 of the Code of Criminal Procedure provides for the recording of the
first information.
(1) The information report as such is not substantive evidence.
(2) It may be used to corroborate the informant under Section 157 of the Evidence Act or to
contradict him under Section 145 of the Act, if the informant is called as a witness.
(3) If the first information is given by the accused himself, the fact of his giving the
information is admissible against him as evidence of his conduct under Section 8 of the
Evidence Act.
(4) If the information is a non-confessional statement, it is admissible against the accused as
an admission under Section 21 of the Evidence Act and is relevant.
(5) A confessional first information report to a police officer cannot be used against the
accused in view of Section 25 of the Evidence Act”
Evidentiary Value of FIR:
 In Shayam Nandan Singh and Ors. v. The State Of Bihar, 1991- FIR was
also treated as res gestae and it was also relevant under section 6 of
IEA.
 In Pancham Yadav v. State of U.P.,1993 - Information of victim was
recorded as FIR. Later on he died. This FIR was also treated as a dying
declaration under section 32(1) of Indian Evidence Act, 1872. This is the
only circumstances when FIR becomes substantive piece of evidence.
 In Ravi Kumar vs. State of Punjab, 2005 Hon’ble Justice Arijit Pasayat
said “It has been held time and again that the FIR is not a substantive
piece of evidence and can only be used to corroborate the statement
of the maker under Section 157 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 or to
contradict him under Section 145 of that Act. It can neither be used as
evidence against the maker at the trial if he himself becomes an
accused nor to corroborate or contradict other witnesses.”
Section 155 : Information as to non -
cognizable cases
 Under the scheme of CrPC, the police are not vested with powers to
investigate non-cognizable offences on their own volition as non-
cognizable offences are considered to be petty- private criminal wrongs.
Such offences may be investigated by the police, provided, a competent
Magistrate orders so in writing.
 The aggrieved person can, however, approach jurisdiction judicial
Magistrate with a complaint and the latter may take necessary steps for
the enquiry and trial of the offender.
 if any person furnishes information to an officer- in- charge of a police
station of the commission of a non-cognizable offence, the police officer
shall enter or cause to be entered the substance of the information in a
book- Station House Diary/ General Diary, shall then refer the informant to
the Magistrate. The police officer has no further duty unless he is ordered by
a Magistrate to investigate the case.
Section 156 : Police officer’s power to
investigate cognizable case.
 The police are clothed with powers under Section 156 CrPC to
conduct investigation in cognizable offences. Under the section an
officer-in-charge of a police station, without the order of a
Magistrate, may investigate any cognizable case.
 The Court has no power to investigate a cognizable case. It is the
statutory power of the police to investigate a cognizable case and
Court has no power to interfere with such investigation. Court’s
function begins with the filing of the charge-sheet.
 A Magistrate is kept in the picture at all the stages of the police
investigation, but he is not authorized to interfere with the actual
investigation or to direct the police how that investigation is to be
conducted.
Section 156 : Police officer’s power to
investigate cognizable case.
 The functions of the judiciary and the police are complementary,
not overlapping, and the combination of individual liberty with due
observance of law and order is only to be obtained by leaving
each to exercise its own function.
 In State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, 1992 the Supreme Court has
clearly held that under the newly introduced sub-section (4) to
Section 155, where a case relates two offences in which at least
one is cognizable, the case shall deemed to be a cognizable case
notwithstanding that the other offences are non-cognizable and,
therefore, under such circumstances the police officer can
investigate such offences with the same power as he has while
investigating a cognizable offence.
Section 160: Police officer’s power to require
attendance of witnesses
 Any police officer making an investigation under this Chapter may,
by order in writing, require the attendance before himself of any
person being within the limits of his own or any adjoining station
who, from the information given or otherwise, appears to be
acquainted with the facts and circumstances of the case; and such
person shall attend as so required:
 Provided that no male person under the age of fifteen years or
above the age of sixty-five years or a woman or a mentally or
physically disabled person shall be required to attend at any place
other than the place in which such male person or woman resides.
Section 161: Examination of witnesses by
police
 Any police officer making an investigation under this Chapter, or
any police officer not below such rank as the State Government
may, by general or special order, prescribe in this behalf, acting on
the requisition of such officer, may examine orally any person
supposed to be acquainted with the facts and circumstances of
the case.
 Such person shall be bound to answer truly all questions relating to
such case put to him by such officer, other than questions the
answers to which would have a tendency to expose him to a
criminal charge or to a penalty or forfeiture.
 The police officer may reduce into writing any statement made to
him in the course of an examination under this section; and if he
does so, he shall make a separate and true record of the statement
of each such person whose statement he records.
Section 162: Statements to police not to be
signed
 Statements to police not to be signed:171 Use of statements in
evidence’.172 Section 162 deals with two things –
i. prohibition of sign on records during investigation. [State of Rajasthan
v. Teja Ram and Others,1999]
ii. prohibition of use of statement, record or any part of this recorded or
prepared during investigation.
 Hon’ble Justice P.N. Bhagwati in Khatri & Ors. v. State of Bihar & Ors.
observed, “Section 162 has been enacted for benefit of the accused and
to protect him against overzealous police officers and untruthful
witnesses…”
I. Rule is that the statement and records cannot be used.
II. Exception is that such statement can be used only in exceptional
circumstances.
 General Rule: No
Use
Section 157 , the Section 32 (1) , IEA,
IEA (Corroboration) [DD]
Exception
Inquiry /Trial of the Section 27 IEA,
Use of statement recorded during

offence under Discovery of Facts

investigation
investigation (section 162)

Use by accused
Section 145, IEA
(Contradiction) Use By prosecutor
[in case of Hostile
witness]

Inquiry /Trial of the offence Use of Ss. 145 and 157 is allowed in both
Other than under cases -Either prosecutor or defence
investigation witness

Civil Matter

Writ Petitions
Common in both
cases Note:
Section 452, CrPC • Section 452, CrPC - Order for disposal of
property at conclusion of trial.
Court Witness