Searching Case Laws & Precedent on Legal Query..!
Scanned Judgements…!
Recording of First Information by Police - Police officers are responsible for recording the First Information Report (FIR) when received. If the informant dies before testifying in court, the content of the FIR can still be used as evidence, but the informant's deposition is generally necessary for direct testimony. However, courts may admit the FIR or other statements if the informant is unavailable, especially if the statement was recorded properly and the circumstances justify it. Various sources, ["e.g."], ["Shabbir VS State of U. P. - Allahabad"], ["Ranvir Singh etc. etc. VS State of Madhya Pradesh - Supreme Court"]
Deposition of First Informant in Court - The main issue is whether a police officer or other witness can depose the content of the FIR or initial information if the actual informant has died. Courts have held that while the FIR itself is admissible, the testimony of the original informant is preferred. If the informant is dead, the court may rely on the FIR, police reports, or other witnesses' testimonies. The absence of the informant's deposition does not automatically invalidate the evidence, provided other evidence supports the case. ["e.g."], ["Shabbir VS State of U. P. - Allahabad"], ["Ranvir Singh etc. etc. VS State of Madhya Pradesh - Supreme Court"], ["MANGAL KUMHAR vs STATE OF BIHAR - Jharkhand"]
Evidence of Police Investigations - Statements recorded by police officers under Section 161 Cr.P.C. are admissible but are not substitutes for the witness's live deposition. If the informant or key witnesses are unavailable, courts may admit their previous statements or FIRs under certain conditions, especially if the evidence is corroborated. The courts emphasize the importance of the witness's availability for cross-examination, but also recognize exceptions when the witness has died or is otherwise unavailable. ["e.g."], ["Shabbir VS State of U. P. - Allahabad"], ["National Insurance Company Ltd. VS Savita - Delhi"]
Handling of Dead Informant's Evidence - When the original informant or witness has died, courts may admit the FIR or police statements as evidence, but the credibility is strengthened if other witnesses corroborate the facts. The courts also consider whether the police recorded the statement properly and whether there are reasons for the informant's absence. The death of the informant does not automatically bar the prosecution from relying on prior recorded statements. ["e.g."], ["Ranvir Singh etc. etc. VS State of Madhya Pradesh - Supreme Court"], ["MANGAL KUMHAR vs STATE OF BIHAR - Jharkhand"]
Final Consideration - A police officer who recorded the First Information cannot depose the content as a witness if the informant is deceased. Instead, the court relies on the FIR, police reports, and other corroborative evidence. The absence of the informant's deposition is not fatal if the evidence is otherwise reliable and properly recorded. The courts may admit the FIR or police statements as substantive evidence, but live deposition of the original informant is preferable for direct testimony. Summary of various sources
Conclusion:
A police officer who recorded the First Information does not generally depose the content in court if the informant has died before testifying. Instead, the court may rely on the FIR, police statements, and other evidence. The death of the informant affects the availability of direct testimony, but admissibility of prior recorded statements or FIRs remains, provided the evidence is credible and properly documented.
Imagine a serious crime is reported, the First Information Report (FIR) is promptly recorded, but tragedy strikes again—the informant passes away before they can testify in court. Should the police officer who recorded the FIR step in to depose its contents? This question often arises in Indian criminal proceedings, raising issues of procedural compliance, evidentiary value, and justice delivery.
In this post, we delve into the legal framework under the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC), 1973, particularly Section 154, exploring police duties, testimony requirements, and FIR admissibility—even when the informant is unavailable due to death. While this provides general insights, consult a qualified lawyer for case-specific advice, as courts evaluate facts individually.
The FIR is the cornerstone of criminal investigations in India. Under Section 154 CrPC, the officer in charge of a police station must record any information about a cognizable offence in writing. Key procedural mandates include:
These steps ensure the FIR's integrity as the first version of events, serving as the investigation's starting point. As noted in legal precedents, an information at the first instance received by a police officer... is called first information. Whereas, a report prepared... is called first information report. C. A. Mohmed Abdul Huq VS S. Manoharan, Superintendent of Police, Kanchipuram Range, Collector Office, Kanchipuram-631 502 - 2012 Supreme(Mad) 4909
Failure to register an FIR promptly violates victims' rights under Article 21 of the Constitution, as emphasized in cases like Lalita Kumari v. Government of U.P. Baldev vs State of H.P. - 2024 Supreme(Online)(HP) 9418
The police officer recording the FIR bears a statutory duty. Their testimony in court typically covers:
Courts scrutinize this testimony for credibility. Even procedural lapses—like missing a formal certificate—don't automatically invalidate the FIR, but they may diminish its evidentiary weight unless they undermine core reliability. Sheo Dan VS State - 1950 0 Supreme(Raj) 165
In one case, the court observed that police testimony based on secret informer details helped trace offenders, highlighting the officer's pivotal role. M/S NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD vs MS. SAVITA & ORS. - 2024 Supreme(Online)(DEL) 26877
The query at hand—Should a Police Officer who Recorded the First Information Depose the Content of the First Information at Court if the Informer Died before Deposing before the Court—centers on substitution via police deposition.
Generally, yes, the recording officer should depose. Their testimony proves the FIR's authenticity and contents, especially sans the informant. Courts accept this as the FIR remains admissible under evidence rules, provided the officer's account is credible and consistent.
Supporting this, in investigations, officers routinely testify on FIR processes, even if witnesses turn hostile or unavailable. For instance, PW12 was the Police Officer who recorded the First Information, and their evidence was relied upon. Kalyan Bhagwar VS State - 2021 Supreme(Cal) 340
Indian courts have clarified FIR dynamics in varied contexts:
There is a slight distinction between the first information and first information report. Preliminary enquiries before FIR can dilute its value, underscoring prompt recording. C. A. Mohmed Abdul Huq VS S. Manoharan, Superintendent of Police, Kanchipuram Range, Collector Office, Kanchipuram-631 502 - 2012 Supreme(Mad) 4909
When witnesses depose differently in court, FIR contents via police testimony provide the baseline. One ruling noted a witness admitting their statement was recorded but altering details later—yet police evidence held sway if corroborated. xxxx v. State of Maharashtra - 2023 Supreme(Online)(Bom) 17482 MAHESH BABURAO DHAVALE vs STATE OF MAHARASHTRA - 2023 Supreme(Online)(Bom) 26372
In death investigations, delayed FIRs or lapses invite scrutiny, but officer deposition upholds the process if procedures were followed. Baldev vs State of H.P. - 2024 Supreme(Online)(HP) 9418
Procedural breaches affecting the root—like not reading the statement or evidence of coercion—may impact admissibility:
Another example: In a murder probe, a witness claimed police have not recorded his statement and for the first time he is deposing before the court, but circumstantial evidence, including police records, prevailed. Jiblal Sharma VS State of Jharkhand - 2018 Supreme(Jhk) 1712
To bolster FIR credibility:
Document irregularities transparently. In contempt cases, false police reporting on FIRs led to penalties, reinforcing accountability. C. A. Mohmed Abdul Huq VS S. Manoharan, Superintendent of Police, Kanchipuram Range, Collector Office, Kanchipuram-631 502 - 2012 Supreme(Mad) 4909
This framework ensures investigations proceed fairly. For tailored guidance, seek professional legal counsel—outcomes vary by facts.
References:
- Sheo Dan VS State - 1950 0 Supreme(Raj) 165 – Core FIR recording and testimony principles.
- C. A. Mohmed Abdul Huq VS S. Manoharan, Superintendent of Police, Kanchipuram Range, Collector Office, Kanchipuram-631 502 - 2012 Supreme(Mad) 4909 – FIR vs. first information distinction.
- Baldev vs State of H.P. - 2024 Supreme(Online)(HP) 9418 – Mandatory FIR registration.
- Other cases: M/S NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD vs MS. SAVITA & ORS. - 2024 Supreme(Online)(DEL) 26877, xxxx v. State of Maharashtra - 2023 Supreme(Online)(Bom) 17482, Kalyan Bhagwar VS State - 2021 Supreme(Cal) 340, Jiblal Sharma VS State of Jharkhand - 2018 Supreme(Jhk) 1712
This post is for informational purposes only and not legal advice.
#FIRLaw, #CrPC154, #PoliceTestimony
He sent the first informant for medical examination to PHC Duddhi with constable Girja Singh on 23.09.1983. On receiving information from the police informer, he had arrested Shabbir resident of Chhiwahi and recorded his statement. On 27.09.1983, he arrested accused Bhola Katar and Ishtiyaq. ... It is the 4th time when she had come to the court. On each occasion, the police#HL_....
It was also urged that testimony of R3W1 i.e. the Investigating Officer was based on the information by the secret informer, thereby enabling him to trace the whereabouts of the offending vehicle as well as the registered owner is not fathomable. ... I recorded statement of Mahender on 28.4.2015. I conducted the investigation on the basis of informer including arrest of accused/driver and impleadment of w....
It was also urged that that testimony of R3W1 i.e. the Investigating Officer was based on the information by the secret informer, thereby enabling him to trace the whereabouts of the offending vehicle as well as the registered owner is not ... Learned counsels for the appellant referred to the contents of the First Information Report2vis-a-vis testimony of R3W1/IO-SI Om Prakash from ....
It is pertinent to note that he has not disclosed this fact before police and he is telling this story for the first time in the Court itself. He has not given any reason why he has not told police about it. PW - 4 has admitted that his statement was recorded by police. ... ... (3) A complaint made under this section shall be signed,-- ... (a) where the Court making th....
The first information was recorded by P.W.20, the Police Officer, who also conducted the investigation, from one of the deceased, Hukum Singh, who subsequently died on 28.07.1992. 4. Under Ex. ... Strangely, he has not lodged any report of the incident, though his statement is stated to be recorded as per the prosecution version. He has stated on more than one occasion ....
by the Investigation Officer under Section 161 Cr.P.C. ... The oral information in this regard was given by him in Police Station Jafarganj on 10.11.2004. ... He denied having made any statement to the Police as that no statement was not recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. ... Druv Singh is the Investigating Officer. He has recorded information#HL_END....
15.5 It was also recorded that as per the information another Investigating Officer was being deputed from Police Station, Kullu. ... Strangely, no contemporaneous record from Police Station Kullu has been produced. Rather, what has been recorded is that information regarding the incident was received in the PS Kullu at 9 PM for the first time. This s....
It is pertinent to note that he has not disclosed this fact before police and he is telling this story for the first time in the Court itself. He has not given any reason why he has not told police about it. PW-4 Mahesh Dhavale has admitted that his statement was recorded by police. ... by such officer of the Court as the Court may au....
It is pertinent to note that he has not disclosed this fact before police and he is telling this story for the first time in the Court itself. He has not given any reason why he has not told police about it. PW-4 Mahesh Dhavale has admitted that his statement was recorded by police. ... Court or by such officer of the Court as the #HL....
Surprisingly, this child witness was not produced before the Court to depose. 15. Further we find that the Investigating Officer of this case has not been examined. ... She stated that the Investigating Officer recorded her statement. After her statement was recorded it was read over and explained to her and finding the same to be correct, she had put her thumb impression. The inquest wa....
He too confirmed that the appellant was acting as the conductor of the bus on the particular day. PW12 was the Police Officer who recorded the First Information and PW13 was the Investigating Officer of the case. He arrested the accused and interrogated some students who availed of the same bus service. PW13 had the victim girl medically examined and collected the report thereafter.
He also stated that police have not recorded his statement and for the first time he is deposing before the court. When he reached, he saw Mantu, Pintu, Mrityunjay were already there at the place of occurrence.
An information at the first instance received by a police officer, who is in charge of the police station with regard to a particular incident is called first information. Whereas, a report prepared and registered based on the first information is called first information report. In this connection, this Court would like to observe that there is a slight distinction between the first information and first information report.
The earliest version of the incident given by PW1 depicts the accused as the person who caused the death of Aleema, but, since she has become hostile and denied the contents of Ext.P1 statement, which was given by her, we are not accepting the contents in the FI statement as such though we are not ignoring it. But, evidence was taken after about seven years and she tried to save her brother who was living with her in the same house and her sister is anyway lost. The question is whether the all....
If the police officer who recorded the First Information Statement has committed default in discharging that duty, that cannot, at any rate, persuade a court to invoke its extraordinary inherent jurisdiction under Sec.482 of the Cr.P.C. It may be the yard stick which a court may employ when it considers averments in a complaint or the final report submitted by the police after investigation. It is for the police officer to question him closely and bring out all the relevant d....
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
