FIRST INFORMATION REPORT
By:
MUHAMMAD TAQI KHAN
Advocate
Supreme Court of Pakistan
Ex-Member Punjab Bar Council.
Section 154 of criminal
procedure code is very important section because it sets the law in motion and
give right to the police to investigate a cognizable offence.
Section 154 of criminal
procedure code lays down procedure for registration of information regarding
the commission of cognizable offence and it also indeed gives mandatory
directions for registration of the case as per the procedure. Therefore, police
enjoys no jurisdiction to cause delay in registration of the case and under the
law is bound to act accordingly enabling the machinery of law to come into play
as soon as it is possible and if first information report is registered without
any delay, it can help the investigating agency to complete investigation
expeditiously. It is advisable that the provisions of Section 154 of the code
read with rule 24-5© of the Police Rules 1934 be adhered to strictly. There
should not be any negligence in recording FIR and supplying the copies to the
concerned quarters because departure from the mandatory provisions of law
creates a room for doubt about the truthfulness of the allegation against the
accused leveled in the FIR.
(2001 SCMR 424)
To appreciate the importance
of first information report, it is essential to read the Section 154 of
criminal procedure code, which is produced as follows;--
"Every
information relating to commission of a cognizable offence, if orally to an
officer in charge of a police station, shall be reduced into writing by him or
under his directions, and be read to the informant, and every such information,
weather given in writing or reduced into writing aforesaid shall be signed by
the person giving it, and substance thereof shall be entered in a book to be
kept by such officer in such form as the provincial government may prescribe in
this behalf."
From the bare reading of this section, it is clear
that one of the method by which a person aggrieved may put the law in motion,
is by giving information regarding the cognizable offence under this section,
which is call First Information Report (FIR). It a basis on
which an investigation is commenced under the chapter. Its object is to
obtain early information of the cognizable offence to record the circumstances
before there is a time for them to be forgotten or embellished. The only
requirement under the law is that is the facts of the information would show
that a cognizable offence been committed. So that the police
may take up the investigation. It is well settled law that the receipt
and record of FIR is not the condition precedent to the setting in motion of a
criminal investigation. If the police have their own knowledge or credible
information though informal intelligence which generally leads them to the
belief that a cognizable offence has been committed, they can of their own
motion, undertake an investigation.
Section 154 is the only
section by which the police officer can compel an informant to sign the
information recorded by him, the failure of which may affect its credence, but
nevertheless it will be admissible in evidence.
(AIR 1962 Cal 641)
To constitute weather the
offence is cognizable or non cognizable, the schedule appended to the criminal
procedure code may be referred. If the column no 2 of the schedule-shows that
the police can arrest without warrant the offence falls under the category of
cognizable offence. The material words in Section 154 of criminal procedure
code are "that the substance thereof shall be entered in a book to be kept
by such officer in such form as the Provincial Government may prescribe in this
behalf” and the word "substance" in it clearly means that the
relevant and the most material part of the facts constituting the criminal
offence with the names of the witnesses should at least be recorded.
THE FIR IS NOT AN ENCYCLOPIDIA
It is only a complaint to
set the law into motion. FIR can be used not only by the defence
for the purpose of contradicting the complainant but also by the prosecution
for the purpose of corroborating him (PLD 1956 FC 171). First information
report is not though be all and end all of every criminal case and is not
substantive evidence (2002 P.Cr.LJ 1902) and after
all can be used for limited purpose like corroboration and contradicting the
maker thereof, or to show that the implication of the accused was not an after
thought, or as one of the res gestae,
or for being tendered in proper case under Section 32(1) of the evidence act,
or as part of the informant conduct under article 8 Evidence Act.
Absence of individual role
in the FIR could not testimony of the complainant which was corroborated by the
version of other injured eye witness. FIR is not substantive piece of evidence
as it only sets the law in motion. FIR is no doubt is an essential piece of
evidence, but the absence of individual role in it would not make its maker as
liar if otherwise such witness is proved to have seen the occurrence. Reliance
may be placed on :--
2000 SCMR 400 & 1993 MLD
2032
Material particulars of the
incident are to be given in the FIR without giving details of incident,
matters. For reference
1913 SCMR 1614
There is case laws which
only consider the FIR as only an information to the police regarding the
commission of cognizable offence and not a piece of evidence. Reliance may be
placed upon:--
AIR
1923 Pat. 158; 1970 P.Cr.L.J 287; 2002 P.Cr.L.J 668; 2002 MLD 83 & 2000 P.Cr.L.J
602
Hearing of accused by the
police officer before registration of FIR is not warranted by law. Section 154
CRPC does not envisage hearing of the accused by the police officer prior to
registration of FIR.
1994 MLD 1736
Recording of FIR after
preliminary investigation is an irregularity which could not effect
sanctity of FIR.
1989 NLR Cr. 665
FIR recorded after
commencement of investigation is not admissible in evidence.
PLD 1965 Kar. 76; 1976 P.Cr.L. J 911; PLD 1996 SC. 314
FARAD BAYAN
FIR recorded on Farad Bayan carries no sanctity because police officer can give
any time suitable to him while recording the statement of the First informant
on the basis of which formal FIR is recorded.
1994 P.Cr.L.J
1069
SUPLEMENTRY STATEMENT
It often happen that police
after recording the FIR record the Supplementary Statement to fill the lacuna
in the prosecution case, which is not permissible under the Law, nor it can
considered as a part of FIR. The August Supreme Court has seriously objected
this practice on the part of the police. As it was held in
1995 SCMR 1395.
Sometimes after recording of
FIR, the complainant improve the prosecution story by adding certain persons as
accused who was not nominated in the FIR or introduces new motive or tries to
change the place of occurance or adding new witnesses
for conspiracy, whose names are not given in the FIR. It is to be noted that
FIR can not be exhibited as FIR because it is a statement during the
investigation and hit Section 162 of Cr.PC. It was
held in the following case as such:--
"Very often in FIR
lodge with the police, is not a complete document and during the interval
between the FIR, and taking of some step in the nature of investigation,
further information is furnished to the police. Such further information is
merely supplemental to the FIR and can not be considered to be a statement made
to the police in the course of investigation."
1973 P.Cr.L.J69."
Names of the witnesses were
not given in the FIR but were subsequently mentioned in supplementary
statement. Testimony of such witnesses excluded from consideration.
PLD 1964 Lah. 32.
DELAY, WHEN NOT IGNORED
Where the distance of place
of occurrence was only 4˝ miles from the police post but the report was lodged
nearly one month after the date of occurrence and the explanation, in taking so
along a time, in lodging the report was that the complainant was trying on his
own to get his daughter back and made a report when he failed in his efforts,
the court refused to accept the explanation.
PLD 1983 FSC 192
PLD 1983 FSC 508
PLD 1983 SC (AJ&K) 23
NLR 1997 Cri. 477
PLJ 2009 Cr.C.
1093.
DELAY, WHEN IGNORED
Where the first informant is
shocked or where she saw her husband and son being killed, and she took some
time to recover before going to police post, the delay in lodging the FIR is
not fatal to the case.
PLD 1978 FSC 1
NLR 1997 Cri. 471
1995 PCrLJ
459
1976 SCMR 135.
CONCEALMENT OF THEIR OWN
FACTS.
In the criminal case it is a
general tendency of the complainant to conceal the material facts so that they
may not be branded as a aggressor, by minimizing their
own part. It is in the shape of concealment of the injuries to the accused
person. And for that matter, he tries to change the place of occurrence, if it
happened to be in front of the house of accused person. It badly affects the
prosecution case and the benefit of doubt is given to the accused.
NON-MENTION OF THE NAMES OF WITNESSES
Omission of the names of the
witnesses in the FIR, who ultimately support the prosecution, is not such a
matter which would throw suspicion upon the story of the prosecution.
The absence of the names of
eye witnesses as such would not weaken the case of the prosecution especially
if the names of the eye witnesses appear in the inquest report, which was
prepared the very next day of the incident.
PLD 1955 SC 216 & ILR
1956 Hyd 148.
The mere non-mention of the
name of a witness in the FIR is not by itself enough to hold that the witness
did not see the occurance.
AIR 1958 All 216.
NON-MENTION OF THE NAME OF THE ACCUSED
Where the complainant was
injured or any other eye witness having opportunities to see the offenders who
are known to the complainant or the eye witness, while giving the first
information omits the names of certain persons, who are latter on placed on
their trail by the police before the courts, such omission will be a
circumstance in the favour of the accused.
PLD 1953 SC 122
Name of the accused was not
mentioned in the F.I.R, but the description was given. Eye witness identified
the accused in identification parade. Omission of the name of the accused in
circumstances is of no significance.
1972 P.Cr.L.J.
1334
Where name of the offender
is not mentioned in the F.I.R. and the prosecution contends that he was not
known to the person who witnessed the occurrence, it is necessary for the
prosecution to make out, what led to the identity and arrest of the offender.
1952 Cr.L.J.
1049
Latest pronouncement by the
Supreme Court.
Sections 154, 156, 161 Cr.
P.C.
F.I.R. and supplementary
statement of the complainant-Distinction. F.I.R is the document which is entered into
the book maintained at the police station on the complaint of the informant and
brings the law into motion, whereby Police start investigation of the case
under Section 156 Cr.P.C. Any statement or further
statement of the first informant recorded during the investigation by police
would neither be equipped with first report nor read as a part of the same.
2000 Y.L.R. 80; 1908
S.C.M.R. 1556 and 1995S.C.M.R. 1350.
Statement of complainant
recorded during investigation after registration of F.I.R. would neither be
equated with F.I.R. nor read as a part of it. It is a simply relevant under Section
161 Cr.P.C.
2000 S.C.M.R. 8 and 2008
Y.L.R. 1838
First Report not received at
the Police Station
Such report would suffer
inherent doubt that same was recorded at the spot after due deliberation.
PLD 2008 S.C. 349.
OBJECT AND IMPORTANCE
F.I.R. in a criminal case.
P.LD.2001
Page 1611; M.L.D. 2001 Page 9 and M.L.D. 2001 Page 241
F.I.R. was normally
considered as corner stone of prosecution case unless it was created by some mala fide intention or wrong version of the
complainant, was recorded by the P.O.
Delay in lodging rape case
can be due namely of reasons properly explained. Delay of not much value.
AIR 1966 S.C. 1343; 1996
S.C.C. 316 and 2007 S.C.M.R. 437
Delay can be ignored
N.L.R 2001 S.C. Cr. Judl. and P.L.J 2003 S.C. 921.
CONCLUSION
(i) FIR
is not substantive piece of evidence. It can be only used to contradict the
complainant or corroborate the complainant.
(ii) FIR is not an
encyclopedia and minute details of the facts of the case are not required under
the law.
(iii) Delay, if not explained,
is always fatal to the prosecution, but if the delay is satisfactorily
explained, it would not shatter the case of the prosecution, especially in the
absence of the previous enmity.
2008 PCrLJ
484.
(iv) FIR can also be
considered as defective and of no value, if it had been recorded after
consultation and deliberation.
2008 P.Cr.L.J
613.