The statements provided to the police fall into three categories:

a) Those recorded as a First Information Report (hereinafter referred to as FIR),

b) statements recorded by the police during an investigation, and

c) statements recorded by the police that do not fit into the aforementioned categories (a) and (b).

None of these statements can be considered substantive evidence, meaning they cannot be regarded as proof of the facts stated therein. This is because they are not made during the trial, are not given under oath, and are not subject to cross-examination. However, if the individual making such a statement to the police later appears in court during the trial and provides testimony, his or her previous statement could be used to support or contradict the testimony in accordance with the provisions of the Evidence Act, 1872.

Section 157 of the Evidence Act stipulates that, for the purpose of corroborating a witness's testimony, any prior statement made by the witness regarding the same fact around the time the offense occurred or before a legally competent authority may be proven. In a similar vein, Section 145 allows for the cross-examination of a witness concerning previous written statements relevant to the matters in question, with specific provisions for contradicting the witness using the written statement.

These rules undergo significant modifications for statements falling under category (b). Notably, confessions made to the police are generally inadmissible, as per Section 25. However, Section 27 provides an exception, allowing the use of information obtained from a person accused of an offense in police custody, even if it amounts to a confession, as long as it distinctly relates to the fact thereby discovered.

While a First Information Report (FIR) is not considered substantive evidence, it can be utilized to corroborate or contradict the informant under Sections 157 and 145, respectively, if the informant becomes a witness during the trial. The timing of FIR recording is crucial for its corroborative value, with early recording minimizing the chance for embellishment or memory lapse.

Undue delays in filing an FIR may arouse suspicion, prompting the court to scrutinize possible motives and explanations, influencing the trustworthiness of the prosecution's version. The absence of names in the FIR, unless provided by an eyewitness, is generally significant. If the accused submits the FIR, it cannot be used for corroboration or contradiction, as the accused is seldom a prosecution witness. In the case of a confessional FIR, Section 25 prohibits its use against the accused informant, but it may be relevant to his conduct under Section 8. If the accused's FIR is non-confessional, it may be admissible as an admission under Section 21 or as evidence of conduct under Section 8.

While the primary use of an FIR is for corroborating or contradicting the informant, there are instances where its content becomes relevant for other purposes. Omissions of crucial facts affecting the case's probabilities are deemed relevant in evaluating the veracity of the prosecution's case.

The Supreme Court has provided observations on the subject matter, emphasizing that the First Information Report (FIR) serves to inform about the commission of a cognizable crime. It can be initiated by the complainant or any individual aware of the offense, intending to set the criminal law in motion. The information, related to a cognizable offense, must be documented in writing by the police station's officer in charge, signed by the informant, and entered into a prescribed book. Importantly, the FIR cannot be used as evidence against the person making it, especially if that person is accused in the matter, nor can it be employed to corroborate or contradict other witnesses.

The Court recognizes that the FIR represents the initial account of the incident received by the police, and while its statements carry weight, it is not considered substantive evidence. The Court must consider additional evidence to determine the case's merit. The FIR can be utilized as a previous statement to either corroborate or contradict its maker. Notably, statements in the FIR cannot be used to contradict a victim of rape during cross-examination if they were not present in the initial FIR.

The Court emphasizes that an FIR is not an exhaustive account but a tool to set the law in motion, requiring essential allegations to constitute cognizable offenses. According to Section 154 of the Criminal Procedure Code, an FIR is not a substantial piece of evidence; it can only be used for corroborating or contradicting its maker, not other witnesses. Corroboration of the FIR's maker is permissible, but it cannot be used as substantive evidence or to corroborate statements from third parties.

The Court underscores that the absence of minute details in the FIR should not imply the non-existence of the stated facts. It dismisses doubts about the reliability of an FIR made by close relatives of the deceased, highlighting that the absence of accused names in the inquest report holds little value when investigating officers and inquest conductors were not questioned on this point. The Court's stance emphasizes the limited but crucial role of the FIR in the legal process.

In the case of Pandurang Chandrakant Mhatre v. State of Maharashtra, it was established that a First Information Report (FIR) is not considered a substantive piece of evidence. Its primary purpose is to serve as the earliest account of a cognizable offense, obtained before circumstances can be forgotten or distorted. While an FIR is not expected to be an exhaustive record of events, it must include essential and relevant details of the incident to be recognized as an "FIR" under Section 154(1). A cryptic or vague report, regardless of the nature and details of the offense, may not be treated as a valid FIR.

Recording an FIR promptly is deemed beneficial as it is likely to be free from embellishments and exaggerations, preserving the account without interference or contamination. The FIR is not only used to discredit the testimony of its maker but can also be employed to corroborate or contradict the statement of the informant. The trustworthiness of the prosecution's narrative can be assessed from the contents of the FIR, and it may also be considered as part of the res gestae.

In the context of summoning someone mentioned in an FIR but not charge-sheeted, the FIR is considered evidence at that stage. However, it was emphasized that if an FIR is registered based on a written complaint without mentioning certain individuals as eyewitnesses, the credibility of their presence may be rightfully questioned.

While the FIR itself is not substantive evidence, its significance in conveying timely information about a crime cannot be understated. Additionally, it can be used for corroborating the informant under Section 157 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, or for contradicting the witness under Section 145 of the same Act, provided the informant is called as a witness during the trial.

The identified circumstances for the uses of non-confessional First Information Reports (FIRs) for evidentiary purposes include:

1.    Corroboration Purposes: An FIR can be used for corroboration, particularly to support or strengthen the statements made by eyewitnesses. It serves as an additional source of evidence that aligns with the accounts of those who witnessed the incident.
2.    Contradicting the Evidence of the Informant: The FIR can be employed to contradict the evidence given by the person who provided the information. Inconsistencies between the statements in the FIR and the later testimony of the informant may impact the credibility of the witness.
3.    Proving as an Admission Against the Informer: The contents of the non-confessional FIR can be treated as an admission against the person who provided the information. Admissions are considered statements against one's interest and can be used as evidence.
4.    Refreshing the Informer's Memory: The FIR can be used to refresh the memory of the person who gave the information. This is particularly relevant when the informant is called to testify, and the FIR aids in recalling details of the incident.
5.    Impeaching the Credit of the Informer: If there are inconsistencies or contradictions between the FIR and subsequent statements or testimony of the informant, it can be used to impeach the credit or reliability of the informant as a witness.
6.    Proving the Informer's Conduct: The FIR can serve as evidence to establish the conduct of the person who provided the information. This may be relevant in understanding the actions or behavior of the informant in relation to the alleged offense.
7.    Establishing Identity of Accused, Witnesses & Fixing Spot Time: The FIR can be crucial in establishing the identity of the accused and witnesses. Additionally, it may help in fixing the spot time, which is considered a relevant fact under Section 9 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872.

These identified uses highlight the multifaceted role of non-confessional FIRs in legal proceedings, ranging from supporting eyewitness accounts to challenging the credibility of the informant and providing key details for the establishment of facts in a case.

Certainly, in addition to the earlier discussed uses, First Information Reports (FIRs) can also attain the status of substantial evidence in specific circumstances:

1.    Dying Declaration: If the person who made the FIR is providing information about the cause of their own death and subsequently passes away, the FIR can be treated as a dying declaration. In such cases, the FIR becomes admissible under Section 32(1) of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. Dying declarations are given special weight in legal proceedings due to the belief that individuals in such situations are likely to provide truthful accounts.
2.    Injuries Caused in the Presence of Station House Officer (SHO): If injuries are inflicted in the presence of the Station House Officer (SHO) within a police station, and the injured person makes a statement to the SHO identifying the accused as the one causing the injuries, the FIR in this context can be considered substantial evidence.
3.    Failure to Recall Memory by the Informer: If the person who wrote or read the FIR fails to recall the details mentioned in the report, but expresses certainty that the facts were accurately represented in the FIR when they wrote or read it, the FIR may be treated as substantial evidence. This recognizes the importance of the FIR as a contemporaneous record of events.

These circumstances highlight instances where the FIR transcends its usual role as a corroborative or contradictory document and becomes a more substantive piece of evidence in legal proceedings. The legal weight given to the FIR in these situations is contingent upon the specific circumstances and legal provisions governing such evidence.

Judgment
1. KantilalShivabhaiThakkar v. State of Gujrat, 1990 Cri LJ 2500
2.  Aghnoo Nagesia v. State of Bihar, AIR 1966 SC 119
3.  BijoySingh v. State of Bihar, AIR 2002 SC 1949
4. Kalyan v. State of U.P, (2001) 9 SCC 632
5. KanikLalthakur v. State of Bihar, 2003 CrJL 375 (Pat)
6. Utpal Das v. State of W.B., AIR 2010 Sc 1894
7. Baldev Sings vs. State of Punjab – (1990) 4 SCC 692 ; State of Gujarat vs. Anirudhsing – (1997) 6 SCC 514.
8. State of M.P. vs. Surbhan – AIR 1996 SC 3345.
9. Dharmendra Singh v. State of U.P, 1998 Cr.LJ 3889
10. Hem Raj v. Raja Ram, AIR 2004 SC 1489
11. (2009) 10 SCC 773
12. Gulshan Kumar v. State, ILR (1993) 2 Del 168
13. Sivrani v. Suryananrain, 1994 CrLJ 2026 (All.)
14. BhimappaJinnappaNaganur v. State of Karnataka, AIR 1993 SC 1469
15. Machchi Singh v. State of Punjab, AIR 1983 SC 957:1983 Cr LJ 1457

Share this News