What is a F.I.R? - Meaning, Object, Importance and it’s Evidentiary Value under CrPC, 1973 or under BNSS, 2023 (Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita) ? | PCS J mains solved paper PDF | CrPC Notes
Q. What Is A FIR?
Basics -
1. Not defined under CrPC
2. But it's concept is discussed under section 154 CrPC
3. It is the information given by a person to the police in charge of a police station, with regard to commission of a cognizable offence.
Object and Importance of F.I.R.:
In legal cases like State of Bombay v. Rusy Mistry, the Supreme Court established that an F.I.R. is the first information about a crime, initiating the investigation. In Hasib v. State of Bihar, the court highlighted its purpose:
1. Initiates criminal proceedings.
2. Provides crucial information for investigation to trace and apprehend suspects.
Manner of Recording F.I.R.:
Section 154 outlines how F.I.R. is recorded:
1. Provided by the informant to the police station's officer in charge.
2. Can be oral or written, later reduced to writing.
3. Read over to the informant and signed if written.
4. Entered in a prescribed book, usually the General Diary.
5. Copy provided to the informant free of cost.
6. For sexual offences, a woman police officer must record the information.
F.I.R. vs. Witness Statements:
F.I.R. differs from witness statements in:
1. F.I.R. precedes investigation, while witness statements occur during it.
2. An FIR. is signed by the person giving it but the statements cannot be made to be signed by witnesses by virtue of Section 162
3. The Supreme Court clarified in Latesh v. State of Maharashtra that F.I.R. need not contain exhaustive details, including names of all witnesses.
Q. Discuss the evidentiary value of F.I.R.
1) The accused filed a FIR:
Section 25 of the Indian Evidence Act prohibits the admission of evidence if the accused confesses in the FIR.
The Evidence Act's Section 21 permits the admission of non-confessional FIRs, as the case of Damodar Prasad v. State of Maharashtra proved.
Sections 145 or 157 of the Evidence Act, however, allow for the use of the accused's FIR statements for contradiction or corroboration if they testify later under Section 145 or 157 of indian evidence act.
2) FIR filed by other witnesses:
Sections 145 and 157 of the Indian Evidence Act permit the introduction of witness FIRs in court to provide evidence against or in favour of the testimony of the witnesses.
In accordance with Section 8 of the Evidence Act, it may also be used as proof of an individual's behaviour.
According to Section 32 of the Indian Evidence Act, in some circumstances, it can even be regarded as a deathbed declaration if the informant has passed away (Damodar Prasad v. State of Maharashtra, (1972) 1 SCC 107).
Q. Are the provisions of Section 154(1) mandatory? Give reasons for your answer and it relevant case laws.
The Supreme Court underlined that police personnel must file a formal complaint (FIR) for crimes that are punishable under the law in the Lalita Kumari v. State of U.P. case. They explained that the word "must" in Section 154(1) of the statute implies that the officer has no discretion and must file a formal complaint (FIR) as soon as they receive reliable information, without having to determine the veracity of the information.The police may conduct a preliminary investigation prior to filing a formal complaint, as the court indicated in particular circumstances. These include situations including divorce, medical malpractice, unethical behaviour, business conflicts, or unusually long delays in disclosing the offence.
This mandate's goals are to stop police personnel from acting arbitrarily and to guarantee that victims are not harassed by the legal system.
Q. What are the remedies for non-registration of FIR?
The informant has two choices in the event that a police officer declines to file a formal complaint under Section 154(1):1) Section 154(3): Remedy before the Superintendent of Police:
The informant has the option to mail the written material by post to the Superintendent of Police.
The Superintendent of Police may choose to conduct their own investigation or assign another officer to do so if they are convinced that a cognizable offence has been committed.
2) Remedies before the Magistrate [156(3)]:
The person may seek the Magistrate under Section 156(3) if the authorities do not take any action under Sections 154(1) or 154(3).
The Magistrate may then mandate that the FIR be registered and that an inquiry be conducted.
The Supreme Court stressed in M. Subramaniam v. S. Janaki (2020) 16 SCC 728 that the informant must go to the Superintendent of Police under Section 154(3) before going to the Magistrate under Section 156(3) if the police refuse to register the FIR. It is not appropriate to use a writ petition as a first resort before exhausting these options.
Q. What are the various provisions laid down in the Code of Criminal Procedure with regard to powers of police to investigate on the basis of FIR?
Police can look into cases that are eligible for investigation under Section 156 of the Code.
Any official in charge of a police station may look into a matter that is eligible for prosecution under Section 156(1) without a magistrate's permission.
According to Section 157(1), an officer in charge of a police station is required to notify the magistrate designated to handle such offences as soon as they have reason to suspect a crime, whether based on information they have received or not. After that, they'll either give it to a subordinate to handle or handle the investigation themselves.
Any official in charge of a police station may look into a matter that is eligible for prosecution under Section 156(1) without a magistrate's permission.
According to Section 157(1), an officer in charge of a police station is required to notify the magistrate designated to handle such offences as soon as they have reason to suspect a crime, whether based on information they have received or not. After that, they'll either give it to a subordinate to handle or handle the investigation themselves.
In the case of State of Maharashtra v. Sarangdhar Singh Shiv Das Singh Chavan (2011), the Supreme Court made it clear that a formal complaint (FIR) is not always required in order for police to investigate a crime. In fact, police are still permitted to investigate under Section 157(1) if they suspect a cognizable offence.
Proviso (a) of Section 157 lists situations in which police may not be required to investigate, provided that the information clearly identifies the offender.
Proviso (b) states that the officer feels there are insufficient grounds for an investigation.
Q. Discuss the position of law in case of second FIR with help of relevant cases.
The Supreme Court held in the cases of Arnab Goswami v. Union of India (2020) and Amitbhai Anilchandra Shah v. CBI (2013) that it is not permissible to file a second FIR for offences connected to the same incident or transaction. The Constitution's Article 21 is broken by doing this.The court made it clear that the second FIR is erroneous and ought to be invalidated if any of the offences included in it originate from the same incident as the first FIR or are related to it. In the cases of Amish Devgan v. Union of India (2021) and Babubhai v. State of Gujarat (2010), this was reiterated. When a second FIR is filed, the court looks into the details of both reports to see if they are about the same incident or occurrence. If they do, they cannot file a second FIR as the initial probe should address all related offences.
Q.What is the effect of delay in lodging FIR?
The first information given regarding a crime that is punishable is called a First Information Report (F.I.R.). In the 2017 case of Mukesh v. State of NCT of Delhi, the Supreme Court emphasised the need of filing a formal complaint as soon as possible in order to obtain preliminary information on the accused, the circumstances surrounding the incident, and the witnesses.A late FIR does not, however, inherently undermine the prosecution's case. A brief wait could be acceptable, but a protracted and mysterious delay raises questions about the veracity of the incident. The Supreme Court said in State of U.P. v. Raghuvir (2018) that delays are suspicious since they may be the result of evidence fabrication.
For example, if A has been gone for four days and there are suspicions of murder or kidnapping, the lack of a formal police report (FIR) raises concerns about the police management of the case and its legitimacy.
Q. Can the police start investigation in this respect without an F.I.R.? Give reasons, supporting your answer and refer to the case law, if any, on this point.
Even in the absence of a FIR, the police may nevertheless launch an inquiry. The Supreme Court stressed that a FIR is not required to begin an investigation in the cases of State of Maharashtra v. Sarangdhar Singh Shiv Das Singh Chavan (2011) and State of Uttar Pradesh v. Bhagwant Kishore Joshi (1964). Under Section 157(1), police are not required to wait for a formal complaint before initiating an investigation into a suspected cognizable offence.Thus, in the event that there are questions regarding whether A was killed or abducted, the police can begin their investigation without filing a formal complaint.
YouTube Channel