Evidentiary Value of FIR

Where there is a clear conflict between the version given in the FIR and the story made out in the course of a trial, it becomes imperative for the court to note the conflict between them. FIR being the earliest record of a case has much importance enabling the court to see what the prosecution case when it was started and to check up subsequent embellishment or any departure.

If a witness during a session trial makes a different statement to that attributed to the witness in the FIR that discredits the witness in the session court. FIR does not increase the weight of the evidence of anybody except the informant and cannot in law be used to increase the weight of the evidence of any person on whose behalf it has been lodged.

The FIR made soon after the alleged incident gives an impression of its being genuine and reliable. Such a report can be looked into to remove doubt as to the name of the eye witness given in the list of witnesses filed in the FIR. The report is admissible under section 8 of the Evidence Act 1872. Where the accused person is named in the promptly lodged report and is supported by medical evidence, it would not be necessary to look for corroboration and the rest evidence available on record will be enough to bring home the guile to the accused person.

Significance of FIR

The FIR is an important document and may be put in evidence to support or contradict the evidence of the person who gave the information. In the case of Mahbubuddin Ahmed vs. State (2005) 57 DLR 513, it observes that FIR takes a prominent place because it is the earliest and the first information of cognizable offense recorded by an officer in charge of a police station.

The principal object of FIR 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. In the case of Seraj Miah vs. Statd (1997) 49 DLR 192, it is held that the FIR is not a substantive piece of evidence and can be used only to corroborate or contradict the matter thereof.

Any deviation or departure from the FIR story makes the prosecution case doubtful and casts serious doubt as to the credibility of the prosecution witnesses. Partial departure creates suspicion as to the truth of the prosecution case and total departure from the FIR story sometimes warrants the exclusion of the prosecution evidence from consideration as per Nawsher Mollah vs. State (1991) 11 BLD 295 case.

It is to be borne in mind that criminal courts attach great significance to the lodging of a prompt FIR. Promptness in lodging FIR mentioning names of accused and witnesses gives valuable corroboration to the direct testimony of the eyewitnesses.

The object of insisting upon prompt lodging of FIR is to obtain prior information regarding the circumstances in which the crime was committed. According to the case of Khorshed vs. State (1999) 51 DLR 317, when the FIR is lodged within the minimum possible time, the story of such a report should not be disbelieved only because of some somersault on the part of the informant.

Delay in lodging the FIR quite often results in embellishment which is a creature of afterthought. Therefore, the delay in lodging the FIR must be satisfactorily explained. In the case of Major Bazlul Huda vs. State (2010) 62 DLR (AD) 1, it observes that the mere delay in lodging a case is not a ground for disbelieving prosecution cases, for there are various circumstances in which lodging any case as to the commission of an offense may be delayed.

Use of FIR

• FIR is used for the purpose of finding out the accused person by the investigation officer.
• At the time of framing of the Charge, FIR is used to corroborate or contradict the statement of witnesses under section 161 CrPC, investigation report, or other documents.
• At the time of trial, FIR is used to corroborate the witness’s statement or evidence. In the case of Al-Amin vs. State 51 DLR (AD) 44, First Information is not the encyclopedia. It is neither the beginning nor the ending of every case. It is only a complaint to get the law or order in motion. It is only an initiative to move the machinery and to investigate a cognizable offense. It is only at the investigation stage that all the details can be gathered and filled up. The First Information Report thus cannot be treated as the first and last word of a prosecution case.

FIR is only used as corroborative evidence. No judgment should be given only relying upon FIR. In the case of State vs. Rashid Ahmed & others 54 DLR 333, the First Information Report is a matter of special importance when its maker died shortly after he made it. The FIR is clearly admissible in evidence. This may also be treated as a dying declaration in view of the fact that the victim himself dictated the Ejahar at the time when his condition was really critical.