Tshewang Dema, a 5th-year law student at LPU School of Law has written this article. It explains all about the evidentiary Value of an FIR in Indian courts.
INTRODUCTION-Evidentiary Value of FIR
“Slam book for the others but FIRST INFORMATION REPORT about crush is the reality”.~AY-Mess
In layman’s words, First Information Report (FIR) is the knowledge or information of any occurrence especially related to crime or the subjects which are either restricted or prohibited by law. The term FIR is not defined anywhere in our law but Section 154 and 155 of CrPC talks about the cognizance of any information related to cognizable offenses and non-cognizable offenses respectively. The purpose of FIR is to bring the law into action of cognizance of any offence, and with cognizance, it is the duty of the state to offer redressal to the victim and protect society from such offences.
The statements made in the FIR are not privileged ones. They do not enjoy immunity. The prosecution can be launched for defamatory statements in the FIR. If there is a difference between FIR and the version narrated in the Court, it is always a matter of gave suspicion to the Court. The FIR is a document and had to be proved like any other document. FIR is not a substantive piece of evidence. Therefore, even if the written report filed has not been duly proved the prosecution case will not fail on that ground alone and the court has to consider the substantive evidence which has been adduced by the prosecution.
The Evidentiary Value of FIR must always depend on the facts and circumstances of a given case. In Asharam & Anr. V State of M.P. the Apex Court held that we do not find any merit in the contentions made in this case. According to the trial court, the foundation of the investigation was not proved and, therefore all the accused were entitled to acquittal. In this connection, the main circumstance on which the trial court relied upon is ante-timing of the FIR. It is well settled that an FIR is not a substantive piece of evidence. It cannot contradict the testimony of the eye witnesses even though it may contradict its maker.
FIRST INFORMATION REPORT AND ITS LEGAL PROVISIONS
WHAT IS FIR?
The information given by any person to the police of an offence which the police is empowered to investigate under the Code (Cognizable Offence), is called ‘first information’. The provision regarding the first information report are contained in the chapter six under Section 154 of CrPC, this information must be reduced to writing and the police officer must make a note of the receipt of this information in a diary maintained by him every day. This written information is called “First Information Report” (FIR).
Even sometime telephonic message or email or Facebook message can be treated as an FIR regardless with the fact and circumstances. An FIR is lodge to set the process of criminal justice in motion.
ESSENTIAL OR INGREDIENTS OF AN F.I.R.
First information report containing information about the commission of a cognizable offence. It is a very important document in a criminal case but it is not referred to as such in the Criminal procedure Code. The important characteristic requirement of an F.I.R are :-
(a). that the information should be the first in point of time;
(b). it should be an information definite and responsible and not merely rumour or village gossip or hearsay of an indefinite variety;
(c). It must have been given to an officer-in-charge of a police station;
(d). it should be the information which set the police on their investigation in the particular case;
(e). it should be the information which set the police on their investigation in the particular case;
(f). is should be given in writing or should be reduced to writing;
(g). it should have been read over to the person who made it and it should be signed by such person;
(h). it should be entered in a book kept for the purpose.
WHO CAN FILE FIR?
The following persons may file an FIR
- The victim or any person on behalf of the victim
- Any person who is a witness to the crime or has heard of the crime
- An officer in-charge of a police station.
So even if any person heard about the commission of a crime then the person can directly approach a police station and file a FIR, mentioning the source from where he heard of the crime. Even hr may either give a written statement or make a oral statement to the officer in-charge who will then write it down in FIR register.
WHY IS FIR NEEDED?
For common understanding, it is believed that FIR is recorded to set the criminal law into motion. Precisely, the police cannot investigate unless any information of criminal act or conduct is received by it. As soon as the police receive the information, the process of arrest, search and trial start. Thus, it is said that FIR is needed to set the criminal law into motion.
However, in State of Maharashtra v Ahmed Shaikh Babajan, the apex court observed that “FIR is not a condition precedent to the setting of criminal law into motion. It means that the police can take action even before the FIR is recorded. Another essential purpose of FIR is to record the information of the offence and the accused before the memory of the information fails or before s/he gets time to fabricate the information.
WHAT SHOULD YOU MENTION IN THE FIR?
Your name and address;
Date, time and location of the incident reported;
The true facts of the incident when they occurred;
Names and descriptions of the people involved in the incident
WHAT THINGS SHOULD YOU DO AFTER FIR HAS REGISTERED?
We must sign the report only after verifying that the information recorded by the police is according to the details provided by us;
People who cannot read or write should put their left thumbprint on the document after making sure it is a correct record. We need to always request a copy of the FIR, if the police do not give it to you as it is our right to obtain it at no cost.
UNDER WHAT CIRCUMSTANCES CAN THE POLICE NOT INVESTIGATE A COMPLAINT, EVEN IF IT SUBMITS AN F.I.R.?
Sometimes, the police will not investigate a complaint, even if you have already filed an FIR;
The case is not serious in nature;
The police feel that there is not enough ground to investigate;
However, the police must record the reasons why an investigation is not carried out and, in the latter case, must also report it.
OBJECTIVE OF THE FIR
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. 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. But the F.I.R. is not a condition precedent to the setting in motion of a criminal investigation.
If information is received and recorded in accordance with Section 154, such F.I.R. becomes the basis of the case set up by the informant, even though it may not be admissible as substantive evidence, and it assumes importance if promptly made. At the same time, 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. 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.
It is not the encyclopedia of the whole incident. Only essential or broad-spectrum need be set out in the F.I.R. and all the minute details are not required to be stated therein. It may not be necessary to catalogue the acts therein and non-mentioning of some facts or vague reference to some others are not fatal. F.I.R. is a vital material as it is first information about the incident and has less chances of altering the version and improvement. It is not substantive evidence and cannot contradict the testimony of the eye-witnesses but may contradict its maker.
EVIDENTIARY VALUE OF FIRST INFORMATION REPORT(FIR)
The evidentiary value of FIR is more important than any other statements during the process of cognizance of any offense or at the time of initiating the investigation about information recorded as per Section 154 or 155 of CrPC. But at the same time the established principle of law that FIR cannot be assumed as a substantive piece of evidence and can only be considered as an important piece of evidence. The reason for which the FIR is regarded as an important piece of evidence is- because of its nature that it is the first information of the cognizance of any offence, and it can be of very important nature as it will help in the initiation of investigation about the offences.
The evidentiary value of FIR was discussed in detail in Dharma Rama Bhagare v. The State of Maharashtra. The observations of the court can be summarised as follow:
- FIR cannot be admissible as evidence before a court of law in a trial
- It can be used only to discredit the maker of the FIR by contradicting him
- It can be used for corroborating any statement made by the maker of the FIR in a court during the trial.
FIR can also be given by the accused himself. An FIR given by the accused can be either the nature of a confessional statement and non-confessional statement. For instance, (i) ‘A’ is accused of the murder of ‘B’. he goes to the police and informs that he murder ‘B’ by stabbing him and throwing his body into the river. (ii) ‘A’ murder ‘B’ and apprehends that he will be caught. To keep himself out of suspicion, A inform the police that he saw an unknown person killing ‘B’.
The first instance is where the FIR given by accused ‘A’ is confessional in nature and the second one is non-confessional. If a statement is confessional in nature, it cannit be used in the court as evidence under section 25 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. The landmark case for considering the evidentiary Value of FIR given by an accused in the case of Aghnoo Nagesia v the state of Bihar. The court in this case held that:
- FIR given by accused is categorically inadmissible as evidence.
- If the FIR given by the accused is non-confessional in nature, it can still be admitted by the maker of the FIR in the court. However, unless specifically admitted, the FIR of the accused cannot be used against him.
- If it is confessional in nature and will expose the accused to criminal charges, it will become inadmissible except as provided under section 27 of the Evidence Act. The section 27 allows the confessional statement if the accused to be used for further investigation for discovery if new and relevant facts and if any fact is discovered, it can be used in court.
- If an FIR is partly confessional and partly non-confessional. It is entirely inadmissible in court. However, if the non-confessional part is absolutely exclusive of the confessional part, it can be a relevant fact under section 18 of the Evidence Act and if admitted by the marker under section 21, can be admissible as evidence.
In certain circumstances, the FIR itself becomes a substantive piece of evidence. Under Section 32 of the Evidence Act, if the person making the FIR is dead or cannot be found or if his attendance cannot be procured without unnecessary delay in the trial, the FIR becomes a substantial piece of evidence. If the FIR mentions the details of the accused, it can be used to convict him though it cannot be the sole reason to convict him. Moreover, if the FIR is a part of a transaction which is admissible in court, the FIR becomes admissible. This is the Evidentiary Value of FIR
SUPPRESSION OF MATERIAL PARTICULARS
It is not correct to say that the F.I.R. is always the first information of the cognizable offence that has come to the police. It is also not correct to say that an information of the commission of a cognizable offence of a hearsay nature, given orally to the officer-in-charge of the police station would be an information admissible in evidence for two purposes i.e. for corroboration of the informant or for the contradiction of the informant if and when he is examined as a witness.
Any information of the commission or suspected commission of a cognizable offence, if given by a person to the officer-in-charge of the police station orally, shall be reduced to writing in a book prescribed by the State Government.
Such information when so laid by the person having direct knowledge about the information would then is admissible as real information under Section 154 of the Code. Then, such information could be used either for corroboration of the informant or for contradiction if and when the informant gives evidence in court touching such information. Moreover, the information must be first in time laid before the officer-in-charge of the police station before any step for the investigation starts upon any other either information received by the police officer whether recorded or not by the police officer in the manner prescribed.
If any information sought to be admitted in evidence as F.I.R. does not satisfy the condition of Section 154, it would not be admissible as F.I.R. for the prosecution to corroborate the informant in court while deposing but it may be used by the defence to contradict the informant in the witness box while deposing. Any statement to the police after the investigation had commenced would be hit by the provisions of Section 162 of the Code. If a witness who laid the F.I.R. on his own knowledge makes a statement in court on oath different from what he had stated in the FIR that discredits the evidence of the witness in court to the extent, but does not make the statement in the FIR evidence in the case.
In Shashikant v. Central Bureau of Investigation & Ors. The Supreme Court decided that Preliminary inquiry is necessary on basis of anonymous Complaint. Whether to initiate investigation or not depends upon fact situation of each case. In the instant case, an anonymous complaint alleging corrupt practice by member of Special Police Force was received. Authorities on basis of said complaint initiated preliminary enquiry against him. Such course is permissible. Although ordinarily in terms of S, 154 of the Code, when a report is received relating to the cognizable offence, a First Information Report should be lodged, to carry out a preliminary inquiry even under the Code is not unknown.
When an anonymous complaint is received, no investigating officer would initiate investigative process immediately thereupon. It may for good reasons carry out a preliminary enquiry to find out the truth or otherwise of the allegations contained therein. Only when a FIR is lodged, the officer in charge of the police station statutorily liable to report thereabout to a Magistrate who is empowered to take cognizable in terms of proviso to Section 157(1) of the Code, Proviso (b) appended thereto empowers the Investigation Officer not to investigate where it appears to him that there is no sufficient ground for entering into an investigation.
The question therefore, as to whether an empowered officer who had made investigation or caused the same to be made in a cognizable offence within the meaning of S. 157 of the Code or had not initiated an investigation on the basis of an information which would not come within the meaning of S. 154 of the Code is essentially required to be determined in the fact situation in each case.
FIR can only be used to corroborate or to contradict the maker of FIR adduced in court provided the maker had direct knowledge of the information. FIR may in certain circumstances be evidence as to the cause of informant’s death or as part of the res-gestae pointing to the informant’s conduct. It may be utilized by the defence to impeach the credit of the informant under Section 155 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
FIR is the earliest version of the case of prosecution and it must be placed before the Judge to weigh the truth or falsity and for corroboration and contradiction of the story of the maker of the information. If an accused lodge an F.I.R. the non-confessional portion is admissible against him.
The substance of Section 154 is therefore, that every information lodged in the police station relating to the commission or suspected commission of a cognizable offence must be reduced to writing if not already in written form and a substance of it must be entered in a book kept in the police station only that information be it recorded as in the manner prescribed by Section 154 of the Code, or not, but on which the investigation in the case is commenced by the police, is the first FIR of the occurrence.
The law does not contemplate that when in the course of the investigation something is elicited in the information can thereupon be recorded. It is a matter of law whether an information is a first information or not, and it is not open to the officer-in-charge of police station to treat an information as such or not, according to his discretion. There is no provision in the Code of Criminal Procedure for any preliminary enquiry prior to investigation or prior to the lodging of the information within the meaning of Section 154.
If circumstances indicate that after receiving some information, however incomplete the police officer had commenced investigation, any sub-commission of the offence by any other person cannot be regarded as FIR in the case and would not be admissible under Section 154 of the Code read with Section 157 of the Evidence Act, being hit by Section 162 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
If there is suppression of FIR and the responsibility of such suppression lies on the door of the prosecution, apart from the inference to be drawn against the prosecution under Section 114 Illustration (g) of the Evidence Act, a case of prejudice to the accused is definitely made out. When the prosecution had suppressed the earlier written report of the occurrence and had submitted a new one for the same then in such a case and when once the F.I.R. was held to be fabricated or brought into existence long after the occurrence then it was held that the entire prosecution case must collapse. No Evidentiary Value of FIR
F.I.R. CAN BE USED ONLY FOR CONTRADICTORY AND CORROBORATORY PURPOSES-Evidentiary Value of FIR
An F.I.R. is not a substantive piece of evidence and can only be used to corroborate the statement of the maker under Section 157, Evidence Act or to contradict it under Section 145 of the Evidence Act. It can only be used for corroboration or contradiction purposes that too when F.I.R. was lodged by a person having direct knowledge about the occurrence. In other cases also the same view has been expressed. When the F.I.R. is clouded with suspicion as it was product of undue deliberation and consultation, then F.I.R. loses its corroboration value.
F.I.R. cannot be relied upon unless it is tendered by the prosecution in accordance with Section 157. Evidence Act. F.I.R. cannot be used against the maker at the trial if he himself becomes an accused not to corroborate or contradict other witnesses.
In Dhirendra Nath v. State, the Calcutta High Court while emphasizing the value of the F.I.R. observed as follows “I am aware that the First Information Report is at times, regarded as part of the res-gestae and on that basis it is sometimes used, not merely for the purpose of corroborating or contradicting the person who lodged it but also for the purpose of lending some assurance to or negativing the general account as given by other witnesses.”
The Orissa High Court also in The State v. Makund Harijan, while holding the same view observed that “No doubt a First Information Report can, strictly speaking, be used only to corroborate or contradict the maker of it. But omissions of important facts, affecting the probabilities of the case, are relevant under section 11 of the Evidence Act in judging the veracity of the prosecution case.”
An F.I.R. recorded without any loss of time is likely to be free from embroideries, exaggerations and without anybody intermeddling with it and polluting and adulterating, the same with lies. The purpose of F.I.R. is to obtain the earliest account of a cognizable offence before there is an opportunity for the circumstances to be embellished.
Though the F.I.R. is not a substantive piece of evidence and can be used to corroborate or contradict the statement of the maker thereof, it can also be used to test and measure the trustworthiness of the prosecution story as a whole. When the case of prosecution was that accused caused injury on the cheek of the informant and when the F.I.R. did not disclose such fact, then such omission in the F.I.R. would seriously impeach credibility of informant.
The first information report is never treated as a substantive piece of evidence. It can only be used for corroborating of contradicting its maker when he appears in Court as a witness. Its value must always depend on the facts and circumstances of a given case. The first information report can only discredit the testimony of the maker thereof. It can by no means be utilized for contradicting or discrediting the other witnesses who obviously could not have any desire to spare the real culprit and to falsely implicate an innocent person. Prosecution case cannot be thrown out on the mere ground that in the first information report an altogether different version was given by the informant.
Contents of FIR can be used for purpose of corroborating or contradicting maker of it if he was examined and under no circumstance as substantive evidence. The F.I.R. can be used to discredit the testimony of the maker of the report and the prosecution case cannot be thrown out merely on the ground that entirely different version is given therein by its maker.
F.I.R. AND AN ADMISSION UNDER SECTION 21 OF THE INDIAN EVIDENCE ACT
The F.I.R. is admissible under Section 157 of the Evidence Act, as corroborating the testimony of the informant or for contradicting him under Section 145 or under Section 8 of the Evidence Act as evidence of his conduct. It may also be admissible as his admission when the accused himself makes the first information report. Section 25 of the Evidence Act lays down that if it is in the nature of a confession, being made to a police officer, it is admissible, and it cannot be proved as against him. If it is not a confession, but contains admissions made by the accused, F.I.R. is admissible in evidence under Section 21 of the Evidence Act.
F.I.R is not a statement made to a police officer during the course of investigation. Section 25 of the Evidence Act and Section 162 of the Code of Criminal Procedure do not bar its admissibility. The report is an admission by the accused of certain facts which have a bearing on the question to be determined by the courts under Section 21 of the Evidence Act. Admission of an accused can be proved against him.
EVIDENTIARY VALUE OF FIR SENT WITH DELAY TO MAGISTRATE UNDER SECTION 157, CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, 1973
Element of delay in registering the complaint or sending the same to the jurisdictional Magistrate by itself would not be fatal to the prosecution, if the evidence adduced by the prosecution was worthy of credence. The extraordinary delay in sending FIR to the Magistrate is a circumstance which provides a legitimate basis for suspecting that the FIR was recorded much later than the stated date and hour affording sufficient time to the prosecution to introduction improvements and embellishment and set up a distorted version of the occurrence.
In such a case, the evidence of eye-witnesses cannot be accepted at its face value. The same view was taken in another important case decided by Supreme Court.
When the FIR has been received by the magistrate with inordinate delay, then the entire prosecution case must be viewed with suspicion. Mere delay in holding inquest proceedings and in delivery of F.I.R. to local Magistrate cannot be said to have rendered F.I.R. ante-timed or ante-dated. In Sarwan Singh v. State of Punjab, their Lordships of Supreme Court has observed that delay in dispatch of the F.I.R. is not a circumstance which can throw out the prosecution case in its entirety.
Hence, if, prosecution had given a very cogent and reasonable explanation for the delay in dispatch of F.I.R. and the trial court was not justified in rejecting prosecution case on the ground of delay in the peculiar circumstances of the case.
Further in the case Pale Singh v. State of Punjabit state when it was found that the F.I.R. was actually recorded without delay and the investigation started on the basis of that F.I.R. and there and there is no other infirmity brought to the notice of the court, then, however improper or objectionable, the delayed receipt of the report by the Magistrate concerned it cannot by itself justify the conclusion that the investigation was tainted and the prosecution insupportable.
FIR CAN BE USED FOR THE FOLLOWING PURPOSES-Evidentiary Value of FIR
(a). It can be used to corroborate the maker under S. 157 of the Evidence Act, but not to corroborate the other witnesses. Apex Court has gone so far to say that the prosecution case cannot be thrown out on the mere ground that if the first information reports an altogether different version was given by its maker. This position has not however been maintained in toto in subsequent cases of the apex court.
(b). F.I.R. can be used to contradict only the maker of it under section 145 and Section 155 of Evidence Act and not other witnesses.
(c). FIR can be used by the defence to impeach the credit of the maker under section 155(3) of the Evidence Act.
(d). A non-confessional First Information Report lodged by the accused can be used against him to prove his admissions in regard to certain facts under Section 21 of Evidence Act.
(e). Certain portion of confessional First Information Report lodged by the accused can be used against him if they lead to the discovery of a fact within the meaning of Section 27 of Evidence Act.
(f). FIR can be used as substantive evidence on the death of the informant if it relates to the cause of informant’s death or circumstances of the transaction resulting in informant’s death within the meaning of section 32(1) of Evidence Act. In other case, it cannot be used as substantive evidence.
Where the accused himself gives the First Information the fact of his giving the information is admissible against him as evidence of his conduct under section 8 of Evidence Act.
WHEN THE F.I.R. WAS, LODGED OR RECORDED AFTER PREPARATION OF INQUEST REPORT
F.I.R. loses all authenticity if it is written after inquest report. When there is discrepancy of distance in F.I.R. and inquest report. Then it must give rise to an inference that the F.I.R. is ante-timed and attached to the statement of F.I.R. and eye-witnesses whose names find place in F.I.R.
Evidentiary VALUE OF FIR IN CASE OF DEATH OF INFORMANT
The word “Dying Declaration” means any statement is written or verbal of relevant facts made by a person, who is dead or it is the statement of a person who had died explaining the circumstances of his death. The concept of dying declaration was evolved from a legal maxim, ‘nemo mariturus presumuntur mentr’ i.e. a man will not meet his maker with a lie in his mouth. Although it may sound impractical but our law has adopted this concept and functions accordingly. Section 32(1) specifically deals with the concept of dying declaration in respect of a cause of death and it is assumed that such statements are relevant even whether the person who made them was not at the time when they were made.
There is no law that the FIR cannot be taken into consideration on the death of Informant. The FIR cannot be thrown out on the death of Informant. The case will have to be proved on the basis of evidence collected by the Prosecution during the course of investigation and FIR is no evidence in the case, it is only a piece of information with the police records with which the system comes into motions and investigation is stopped it. In the case of A.P. High Court in Edgia Jagannath Goud and others v. State, held that FIR is only used for the purpose of corroborating or contradicting if the person who has complained is examined. In a case where the first informant died before he could depose before the Court at best the purpose of corroborating or contradicting its contents by the persons would not be possible.
Keeping that in view, that the accused could not cross-examine the first informant the other evidence produced can be looked into. As the FIR is not a substantial piece of evidence it should not have any effect on the prosecution case if its contents were not proved by the person who gave it because of his death. In view of the judgment of the Supreme Court in Hakirath Singh v. State of Punjab, this court felt that non-examination of the complainant on account of his death would not be factual on its own to the prosecution case and it will depend upon facts of each case.
If the prosecution story as revealed by the witnesses in the Court is directly contradictory to the contents of the FIR it may have one effect and on the other hand if the contents of FIR are in conformity with the evidence adduced during the trial it may have altogether a different effect.
F.I.R. IS A PUBLIC DOCUMENT
Whenever there is a bona fide requirement, the Court to which F.I.R. is forwarded by the Police, can grant certified copy of F.I.R. or payment of legal fee by the accused as it is a certified copy of a public document. FIR is a public document prepared under Section 154 Cr.P.C. A certified copy of the FIR can be given in evidence (getting of FIR can be by the accused – accused is entitled to get a copy of the FIR only under the orders of the Court after the Court has taken cognizance of the case and not before but the accused can get a copy of FIR on payment from the Court).
The officer-in-charge of a Police Station is not authorized to give copy of FIR to the accused. If he gives copy of the FIR to the accused he will be liable under Section 29 of the Police Act, 1961.
Section 74 of the Indian Evidence Act reads: “Public documents”: – The following documents are public documents,-
(1) Documents forming the acts or records of the acts-
(i) of the sovereign authority,
(ii) of official bodies and Tribunals, and
(iii) of public officers, legislative, judicial and executive, of any part of India or of the
Common Wealth, or of a foreign country.
(2) Public records kept in any State of private documents.”
PROVING OF FIR
The FIR is a document and had to be proved like any other document. The informant must be produced in the court during the trial and must be examined by the prosecution and cross-examined by the defence and FIR should be marked as exhibit. When the maker of the FIR was examined in the court, but the FIR is not tendered by the prosecution in accordance with the provisions of Indian Evidence Act. A court is debarred from relying on it.
FIR is an important report and if duly recorded provides a valuable evidence. it is a valuable piece of evidence in any criminal trial either for corroborating evidence or for contradicting witnesses, FIR can be used to corroborate the Informant under S. 157 of Indian Evidence Act, 1872, or contradict the witness under S. 145 of the same Act if the informant is called as a witness in the trial. Therefore, it becomes necessary that such report be recorded in all circumstances especially where the person has come to the police station to lodge an FIR against a particular crime. FIR considered as Substantial Evidence in certain cases which the paper will discuss and in other circumstances FIR can be used as non-confessional in nature for evidentiary purposes.
 THE CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, 1973
 Kanik Lal Thankur v. State of Bihar, 2003 Cri. L.J. 375 (Pat.).
 Dharma Rama Bhargava v. State of Maharashtra, 1973 Cri. L.J. 680 (S.C.).
 AIR 2007 SC 2594
 LawSchoolNotes: Evidentiary value of First Information Report (F.I.R.), available at: https://lawschoolnotes.wordpress.com/2017/04/23/evidentiary-value-of-first-information-report-f-i-r/#_ftn6 (visited on March 10, 2021).
 Ipleader: Evidentiary Value of FIR. Available at: https://blog.ipleaders.in/evidentiary-value-ofFirst_Information2/#:~:text=The%20reason%20for%20which%20the,of%20investigation%20about%20the%20offences. (visited on March 11, 2021).
 2009 (1) RCR 224
 Basu, D.D.; Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, Vol. 2, 4th Ed., LexisNexis Butterworths Wadhwa Ltd., Nagpur, 2010, p. 803
 LatestLAW.COM: All about filing of First Information Report (FIR), available at: https://www.latestlaws.com/articles/all-about-filing-of-first-information-report-fir-by-roopali-lamba/ (visited on March 20, 2021).
 Basu, D.D.; Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, Vol. 2, 4th Ed., LexisNexis Butterworths Wadhwa Ltd., Nagpur, 2010, p.804
 ResearchGate: Evidentiary Value of First Information Report (FIR), available at: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/228226560_Evidentiary_Value_of_First_Information_Report_FIR (visited on March 20, 2021).
AIR 1973 SC 476.
 AIR 1966 SC 119
 ResearchGate: Evidentiary Value of First Information Report (FIR), available at: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/228226560_Evidentiary_Value_of_First_Information_Report_FIR (visited on March 20, 2021).
 AIR 2007 SC 351.
 THE CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, 1973
 Legal Services India: FIR Its Evidentiary Value, Consequences on Denial By The Police To Lodge. Available at: http://www.legalserviceindia.com/legal/article-523-First_Information-its-evidentiary-value-consequences-on-denial-by-the-police-to-lodge.html (visited on March 22, 2021).
 THE CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, 1973
 Manna Lal v. State, 1967 Cri. L.J. 1272 : A.I.R. 1967 Cal. 478.
 Hanuman Nath v. State of Rajasthan, 1984 Raj. L.W. 486
 Krishna Kumar v. State, (1983) Del. L.T. 442.
 Kanhai v. State of U.P., 1986 All. Cr. R. 473 : 1986 All. C.C. 459.
 Damodar Pd. V. State of Maharashtra, A.I.R. 1972 S.C. 622.
 A.I.R. 1952 Cal. 621
 1983 Crl. LJ. 1870.
 Purandas Bhukta v. State of Orissa, 1991 Cri. L.J. 1388 (1389-90)
 Section 25: Confession to police officer not to be proved of THE INDIAN EVIDENCE ACT, 1872
 State of Rajasthan v. Shiv Singh, 1962(1) Cri. L.J. 82 : A.I.R. 1962 Rajasthan 3.
 Paddi v. State of M.P., A.I.R. 1964 S.C. 1850 : 1964 Cri. L.J. 744.
 Balaka Singh v. State of Punjab, 1975 Cri. LJ. 1734 : A.I.R. 1975 S.C. 1962
 Ishwer Singh v. State, 1985 Cri. LJ. 1625 : 1984(2) Crimes 127.
 AIR 1976 SC 2304
 Legal Services India : The Evidentiary Value Of First Information Report, available at: http://www.legalserviceindia.com/legal/article-4173-the-evidentiary-value-of-first-information-report.html (visitd on March 25, 2021).
 A.I.R. 1972 S.C. 2679.
 Supra at 33
 Nisar Ali v. State of U.P.; 1957 Crl. L.J. 550 SC.
 Shyama Charan v. State of U.P., 1984(2) Crimes 782 : 1984 All. L.J. 1303 (All.).
 2004(2) ALD (Crl.) 241 (A.P.)
 Jayanti Bhai Lalu Bhai Patel v. State of Gujarat, 1992(2) Crimes 253 (Gujarat).
 Legal Services India: FIR Its Evidentiary Value, Consequences on Denial By The Police To Lodge, available at. Http://www.legalserviceindia.com/legal/article-523-First_Informationits-evidentiary-value-consequences-on-denial-by-the-police-to-lodge.html (visited on March 28, 2021).