DAMODARAM SANJIVAYYA NATIONAL LAW UNIVERSITY

DAMODARAM SANJIVAYYA NATIONAL LAW UNIVERSITY

SABBAVARAM, VISAKHAPATNAM, A.P., INDIA

PROJECT TITLE – OMISSION IN FIR

SUBJECT – CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE

NAME OF THE FACULTY – Ms. SOMA BATTACHARJYA

NAME OF THE CANDIDATE – SAUMYA SINGH

ROLL NO. – 2017082
SEMESTER- FOURTH SEMESTER

1|P age
 DAMODARAM SANJIVAYYA NATIONAL LAW UNIVERSITY

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

I would like to put forward my heartfelt appreciation to my respected Code of Criminal

Procedure Associate Professor Ms. Soma Battacharjya for giving me a golden opportunity to
take up this project regarding “Omission in FIR”. I have tried my level best to do justice with
my project topic by collecting information about the project topic from various trustworthy sites
and books in various possible ways to depict clear picture about the given project topic.

2|P age
 DAMODARAM SANJIVAYYA NATIONAL LAW UNIVERSITY

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1. SYNOPSIS………………………………………………………………………………04
2. INTRODUCTION………………………………………………………………………06
3. NON-DISCLOSURE OF INJURIES IN FIR………………………………………….08
4. MENTIONING AND NON-MENTIONING OF THE ALLEGED WEAPON TO HAVE
BEEN USED BY THE ACCUSED IN THE OCCURRENCE………………………..11
5. OMISSION OF WITNESSES NAME IN FIR………………………………………....13
6. NON-MENTIONING OF DETAILS IN FIR LEADING TO ADVERSE
PRESUMPTION……………………………..………………………………………….16
7. NON-MENTIONING OF DETAILS IN FIR NOT LEADING TO ADVERSE
PRESUMPTION…………………………………………………………………………19
8. CONCLUSION…………………………………………………………………………..23
9. BIBLIOGRAPHY……………………………………………………………………….24

3|P age
 DAMODARAM SANJIVAYYA NATIONAL LAW UNIVERSITY

SYNOPSIS

TITLE OF THE RESEARCH PROJECT – Omission in FIR

INTRODUCTION – FIR is nothing but a report relating to the commission of a cognizable

offence given to the officer in-charge of a Police Station and recorded by him u/s 154 of
Criminal Procedure Code, 1973. The object of FIR from the point of view of Informant is to set
the criminal law into motion and from the point of view of Investigating Agencies is to obtain
information about the alleged criminal activity so as to take necessary steps for tracing and
bringing to charge the guilty party. FIR is not meant to be a encyclopedia. While considering the
effect of certain omissions in the FIR on the part of Informant court cannot fail to take into
consideration the physical and mental state of the Informant.

RESEARCH QUESTION –

1. Is omission of witness name in FIR fatal to the case of Prosecution?

2. Whether minor discrepancies in the FIR would make the prosecution story to be
suspected?
3. Will the non-disclosure of injuries in FIR seriously impeach the credibility of the
Informant?

LITERATIRE REVIEW –

1. Dr. Raj Kumar, Evidentiary Value of FIR: Introspection 4 GILS, 1-17 (2016)
FIR cannot be used as substantive piece of evidence but it can be used in case of dying
declaration. The value of FIR always depends upon facts and circumstance of a given
case. FIR is generally used to corroborate or contradict the maker of FIR. It may be
utilized by the defence to impeach the credibility of informant u/s 155 of CrPc. A FIR is
not supposed to be a detailed document. FIR is a public document prepared u/s 154 of
CrPc.

4|P age
 DAMODARAM SANJIVAYYA NATIONAL LAW UNIVERSITY

2. Jamshed et al., First Information Report : A Critical Study 1 IJIIR, 21-25 (2016).
FIR is a report relating to the commission of a cognizable offence given tp the police and
recorded by him u/s 154. It is the earliest report made to the Police Officer with a view to
his taking evidence. In fact, it is information given to the police officer by an informant
on which the investigation is commenced.

OBJECTIVE OF THE STUDY – The objective of the study is to find in which facts and
circumstances the omission in FIR is admissible.

RESEARCH METHODOLOGY – In this project, the researcher will go in the furtherance of

Doctrinal, Explanatory, Descriptive and Exploratory Studies.

SOURCES OF DATA COLLECTION – The source of data collection is secondary source i.e.;
books and articles.

SCOPE OF THE STUDY – The scope of the study is India.

SIGNIFICANCE OF THE STUDY – The significance of the study is to know the evidentiary
value of FIR and omission in FIR.

CHAPTERIZATION – The following are the chapters which the researcher will deal in detail –

1. Introduction
2. Non-disclosure of Injuries in FIR.
3. Mentioning and non-mentioning of the alleged weapon used by the A at the time of
occurrence.
4. Omission of witness name in FIR.
5. Non-mentioning of details in FIR leading to adverse presumption.
6. Non-mentioning of details in FIR not leading to adverse presumption.
7. Conclusion

5|P age
 DAMODARAM SANJIVAYYA NATIONAL LAW UNIVERSITY

OMISSION IN FIR

INTRODUCTION

FIR is a report relating to the commission of a cognizable offence given to an officer in charge of
a police station and recorded by him or under his direction u/s 154 of CrPC.1 After reducing it to
writing it must be read over to the informant and shall be signed by the person giving it. 2 The
copy of the information as recorded shall be given forthwith, free of cost, to the informant.3 It is
the earliest report given to an officer in charge of a police station with a view of his taking
action.4 As stated by the Hon’ble SC, “The object of a FIR from the point of view of the
informant is to set the criminal law in motion. From the point of view of the investigating agency
is to obtain the information about the alleged criminal activity so as to be able to take suitable
steps for tracing and bringing to book the guilty party.”5 FIR is not substantive evidence.6 It is
the most important piece of corroborative evidence on which the entire case of prosecution is
built up.7 It cannot be used as evidence against the Informant during the trial if he himself
becomes the Accused.8

Any police officer making an investigation u/s 156 and 157 may examine orally any person
supposed to be acquainted with the facts and the circumstances of the case.9 The statements
made by any person to the police officer shall be used only for the purpose of omission and
contradiction in the manner provided by § 145 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (hereinafter
‘IEA’).10 FIR is used to corroborate the statement of the maker or to contradict the maker u/s 157
and 145 of IEA, 1872 respectively. If during examination-in-chief a witness has deposed a
certain thing which he has omitted to depose before the police officer in his statement u/s 162 is
‘omission’. If the omission is on minor points, it is not contradiction and the Court will not take

1
Jamshed et al, First Information R.pkeport : A Critical Study, 1 IJIIR. 21-25 (2016).
2
The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, Act No. 2 of 1974 §154(1). (hereinafter ‘CrPC’)
3
Id 2 § 154(2).
4
Apren v. State, A.I.R. 1973 S.C. 1.
5
Hasib v. State of Bihar, A.I.R. 1972 S.C. 283.
6
State of Assam v. U.N. Rajkhowa, 1974 Indlaw GUW 17.
7
Balaka Singh v. State of MP, A.I.R. 1975 S.C. 1962.
8
Nisar Ali v. State of UP, A.I.R. 1957 S.C. 366.
9
Supra Note 2 § 161(1).
10
Supra Note 2 § 162(1).

6|P age
 DAMODARAM SANJIVAYYA NATIONAL LAW UNIVERSITY
it into consideration. Nevertheless, the Court will take cognizance of those omissions which are
on material point. If the statements made before the police officer are inconsistent or
irreconcilable with the statements deposed before the court, then it may amount to contradiction.
‘An omission to state a fact or circumstance in the statement may amount to contradiction if the
same appears to be significant and otherwise relevant having regard to the context in which such
omission occurs and whether such omission amounts to contradiction in the particular context
shall be a question of fact.’11 As stated by Orissa High Court, “No doubt a FIR can, strictly
speaking, be only used to corroborate or contradict the maker of it. But omissions of important
facts, affecting the probabilities of the case, are relevant u/s 11 of IEA, 1872 in judging the
veracity of the prosecution case.12 The following doctrines are used for contradiction and
omission of the statements made before the police u/s 162-

 Doctrine of Implied statement – Prima facie a statement cannot take in an omission. A

statement cannot include what is not stated. But very often to make a statement sensible
or self-consistent, it becomes necessary to imply words which are not actually in the
statement. Though something is not expressly stated, it is necessarily implied from what
is directly or expressly stated.13
Illustration – A made a statement previously that he saw B stabbing C to death; but
before the court he deposed that he saw B and D stabbing C to death: the court can imply
the word ‘only’ after B in the statement before the Police.
 Doctrine of Recital – Sometimes a positive statement may have a negative aspect and a
negative one a positive aspect.
Illustration – If a witness states that a man is dark, it also means that he is not fair.
Thought the statement made describes positively the colour of a skin, it is implicit in that
statement itself that it is not of any other colour.14
 Doctrine of Inherent Repugnancy – There are occasions where we come across two
statements made by the same person at different times and both of them cannot stand
together or co-exist. There is an inherent repugnancy between the two and, therefore, if
one is true, the other must be false.
11
Supra Note 2 § 162.
12
State v. Makund Harijan, 1983 Indlaw ORI 35.
13
Tahsildar Singh v. State of UP, A.I.R. 1959 S.C. 1012.
14
Id.

7|P age
 DAMODARAM SANJIVAYYA NATIONAL LAW UNIVERSITY
Illustration – A person says that when he entered the room, he saw A shooting B dead
with a gun; on another occasion the same person says that when he entered the room he
saw C stabbing B to death; both the statements obviously cannot stand together, for, if the
first statement is true, the second is false and vice-versa.15

NON-DISCLOSURE OF INJURIES IN FIR

When there is no explanation offered in the FIR as to how the accused persons came to receive
the injuries, then the evidence given by the prosecution witnesses in regard to the incident cannot
be accepted at its face value.16 When the case of the prosecution was that the Accused caused
injury on the cheeks of the Informant and when the FIR did not disclose such fact then such
omission in FIR would seriously impeach the credibility of the Informant.17

In Mitter Sen & Ors v. State of U.P18, there was a petty dispute between the A1 on one hand and
Bhajan Lal, Raghubar Dayal(I) and Shyam Lal(D) on the other. The chabutra of Bhajan Lal was
demolished by the Town Area Committee of Charra for facilitating construction of pakka drain
but the chabutra of the first appellant was spared. Bhajan Lal thought that the reason behind the
demolition of his chabutra is A1 and he starts bearing ill-will against him. On one occasion there
was a verbal altercation between A1 and D. On the same day, late in the evening, at around 9:30
pm the first A1 along with A (2-5) came to the house of I and D. A1 & A2 were unarmed but A3
had a knife and A4 had a danda . The accused dragged I and started assaulting him with kicks,
fist and danda. When D tried to intervene, he was stabbed thrice or four times by A3 with a
knife. On hearing the noise PW1 and PW2 came out of the house with lathis and started
assaulting the A. by this time some other neighbors also arrived and the Accused ran away. I and
D were taken to the hospital where D succumbed to his injuries. FIR was lodged by I.
Investigation commenced, chargesheet was filed and the matter came up for trial.

Contention of the A before trial was that ‘at about 9:30 pm, they were going to their house. In
Jawahar Chowk only I, D, PW1 & PW2 arrived and started assaulting A1 and A2 with dandas.
When A3 tried to help A1 and A2, PW3 aimed a knife at him and in the exercise of his right to
15
Id.
16
Mitter Sen v. State of UP, A.I.R. 1976 S.C. 1156.
17
Purandas Bhukta v. State of Orissa, 1991 Cr LJ 1388.
18
Supra Note 13.

8|P age
 DAMODARAM SANJIVAYYA NATIONAL LAW UNIVERSITY
private defense he snatched away the knife and wielded it and it accidently struck the D. The
learned Additional Session Judge came to the conclusion that the prosecution version was correct
and A3 was convicted u/s 302, 148, 323 r/w 149 and the other A were convicted u/s 147, 323 r/w
149. They appealed to HC against their conviction and sentence. The conviction of A3 was
altered from 302 to 304 and the other A were convicted u/s 323 r/w 34 including A3. Through
SLP they approached SC. There was a serious infirmity in the FIR which threw a grave doubt on
the veracity of the prosecution case i.e., the evidence clearly showed that A2, A3 and A4
sustained injuries who could have been caused by dandas or lathis but this injury was no where
mentioned in the FIR. Further, there was no mention of PW1 and PW2 in the FIR who assaulted
the A. However, the name of neighbors was explicitly mentioned in the FIR. Moreover, there
was no mentioning of injuries to the A in the FIR. Secondly, the Court didn’t find any sufficient
ground to attribute any common intention to the A to cause simple hurt to I. Therefore, the
appeal was allowed and the conviction and the sentence of the A u/s 323 r/w 34 was set aside.19

In Thakur Prasad v State of MP20, it was held that non-disclosure of the A name as well as non-
disclosure of the marks of injury on A are material and relevant for the purpose of appreciation
of evidence. The lower judiciary came to a definite finding on the evidence produced before
them that the A was a member of the unlawful assembly and took some part in inflicting injuries
on the D in the prosecution of the common object of the unlawful assembly, and the SC cannot
go behind the concurrent finding.

In Govind Narain v State of Rajasthan21, PW-17 had not seen the occurrence and he very
cleverly left the FIR so vague so that he could improve upon it at the stage of trial. PW-17 in the
FIR stated that on one fateless night, he heard the continuous barking of dogs thus he went to the
balcony and saw that his brother (Gopi Chand) had come out to see the reason behind the dogs
being barking. Then, after sometime he heard the cries of his brother and saw the A1, A2 and A3
were running in different directions. Neither the manner of assault nor the occurrence relating to
the pushing of the D in well was mentioned in FIR. Upon a careful perusal of the FIR it can be
easily deduced that PW-17 did not witness the occurrence. Had he been witnessed it, he would
have never omitted those vital details in the FIR.

19
Id.
20
A.I.R. 1954 S.C. 30.
21
A.I.R. 1993 S.C. 2457.

9|P age
 DAMODARAM SANJIVAYYA NATIONAL LAW UNIVERSITY
In Nirmal Karmaber v. State22, it was mentioned in the FIR that the A has only attempted to
outrage the modesty of the prosecutrix and nowhere was it mentioned that he raped her. It was
held that this omission in the FIR is of paramount importance and it could not be overlooked as
the omission of important fact affecting prosecution case are relevant u/s 11 of the Indian
Evidence Act, 1872. Statements made to the police can be used either to corroborate or
contradict its maker and omission of vital information in the FIR may amount to Contradiction as
per § 145 of Indian Evidence Act, 1872.

In Dharminder v State of HP23, there were two friends who decided to stay together. F2 had a
daughter named Gangawati and F1 had two son named Laiq Ram and Durga Nand. After the
death of F2, the property was taken care by F1. F2 desired her daughter to get married to Laiq
Ram. They got married. Gangawati on attaining majority inherited the property of her father. F1
wanted Durga Nand to be a co-sharer in the property but Gangawati and Laiq Ram didn’t agree
upon it. F1 and Durga Nand harassed Laiq Ram so much that he left the village. At that time
Gangawati was pregnant and later she gave birth to Neel Kanth. In the meantime F1 succeeded
in getting half-share of the property to be recorded in the name of Durga Nand. Neel Kanth
persuaded his father to come back to the village. On one occasion, Durga Nand along with his
wife was cultivating the land of Gangawati. There was afight between theem in which Laiq Ram
dies and Neel Kanth was injured. This was seen by Neel Kanth’s wife who narrated the entire
incident to the neighbour. He went to the spot, saw the incident and lodged the FIR. Trial Court
convicted all of them. On appeal, HC upheld the conviction of all the male members of the
family. Accused approached SC through SLP. The accused contended that the FIR cannot be
trusted because there is no details of the injury. SC stated that normally a lady belonging to the
orthodox society will never go to the Police Station. First informant was not an eye witness but
his testimony was corroborated by the medical evidences. SC stated that the omission has to be
disregarded and the judgement given by the HC was upheld.

22
(1984) 88 C.W.N. 150.
23
2002 Indlaw S.C. 1785.

10 | P a g e
 DAMODARAM SANJIVAYYA NATIONAL LAW UNIVERSITY

MENTIONING AND NON-MENTIONING OF THE ALLEGED WEAPON TO HAVE

BEEN USED BY THE ACCUSED IN THE OCCURRENCE

FIR cannot be said to have contained concocted version when it contains sufficient details of
occurrence and mentions weapon of offence as also the exact place of occurrence. 24 Where the
informant is neither an eye-witness nor is his report based on the information given by an eye
witness, non-mention of the weapon in FIR is of no consequence.25 When the parentage of
accused was not given in FIR, but it was found in General Diary the omission does not appear to
be of any significance and could be no reason for disbelieving the FIR.26

In State of UP v. Babbabh Das27, it was held that when the case of the prosecution clearly shows
that the injury was inflicted by lathis and medical evidence corroborate this, then the mere non-
disclosure of the assault made by lathi in the FIR is not a omission. Non-mentioning of spear28
or lathi would not be proved fatal to the version of prosecution.

In State of UP v. Hari Ram29, it was held that Eye-witness in his examination deposed that the A
were armed with deadly weapons like Knives and spears and lacerated wounds and abrasions
were found on the body of the D and there was no inconsistency between the ocular evidence
and the medical evidence. Thus, the mere non-mention of above stated facts in FIR is irrelevant
when the types of weapon used by the A were stated before the Police in the statements recorded
by him u/s 162.

In Ram Kumar Pandey v. State of MP30, it was observed by the SC that most likely a F.I.R. is a
past explanation which can carefully, be just used to corroborate or contradict its producer.
Where it was made by the father of the deceased to whom all the critical realities of the event, so
far as they were known upto 9.15 P.M. (event occurred at 3.30 P.M.) and will undoubtedly have
been conveyed and especially when his little girl had seen the A assaulting the deceased very
badly : and he didn't specify these actualities in his F.I.R., such omission goes to the very

24
State of Rajasthan v. Mani Ram, 1994 (1) W.L.N. 161.
25
Shivaji Genu Mohite v. State of Maharashtra, A.I.R. 1973 S.C. 55.
26
Sona Lal v. State of UP, A.I.R. 1978 S.C. 1142.
27
A.I.R. 1985 S.C. 1384.
28
State of Haryana v. Sher Singh, A.I.R. 1981 S.C. 1021.
29
A.I.R. 1983 S.C. 1081.
30
A.I.R. 1975 S.C. 1026.

11 | P a g e
 DAMODARAM SANJIVAYYA NATIONAL LAW UNIVERSITY
inception of the prosecution and influences the probabilities of the case; such direct is pertinent
under Section 11 of the Evidence Act in making a decision about the veracity of the prosecution
case, in the present case the names of eye-witnesses and the way of inflicting blows were not
referenced.

In State of Orissa v. Abdul Wahid31, “the evidence of the informant eye witness disclosed that
soon after her husband was declared dead, she went to the nearby Police Station to lodge the
FIR. When she was narrating the incident she forgot to mention the use of the knife by the A.
The Court observed that she must have been in a perplexed state of mind at the time when she
orally reported about the occurrence in the first instance, and this circumstance should be taken
into consideration while considering the effect of the omission in the FIR. What weighed with
the lower Court while rejecting the evidence of the said eye witness was that while deposing the
statements the informant eyewitness did not have the explanation that she did not mention about
the use of knife, as she was perplexed at that time of lodging of the FIR. The observations made
by the lower court in this context would suggest that if only the eye-witness had stated that being
perplexed she omitted to state about the knife at the time of recording of the FIR the said would
have been considered as an acceptable explanation. When the reliable evidence regarding the
events which preceded the giving of the oral report by the eye-witness leaves no room for doubt
that she was bound to be in a highly agitated state of mind at the time when she reported about
the occurrence to the police, the same should have weighed with the lower Court in considering
the omission to mention about the knife in the FIR. When the eye witness stated that she did
mention about the use of the knife at the time of lodging the FIR, it was assumed that she was
not speaking the truth without fully appreciating the significance of her statement. It is common
practice that when an informant orally reports about the occurrence the statement is reduced to
writing and immediately thereafter the informant’s statement under Section 161, Cr. P.C. is also
recorded and in this case also the same procedure must have been adopted while recording the
statement of the eyewitness under Section 161, Cr. P. C.32 Also, the informant eye-witness is an
illiterate lady and does not know even to sign her own name. So when the eye-witness orally
reported about the occurrence to the police it is not expected to her to draw a distinction between
that part of her statement recorded in the FIR and that part of her statement recorded under

31
1990 Cr LJ N.O.C. 136.
32
Id.

12 | P a g e
 DAMODARAM SANJIVAYYA NATIONAL LAW UNIVERSITY
Section 161, Cr. P.C. But the fact remains that at the earliest point of time when her statement
was recorded under Section 161, Cr. P.C., She did state about accused using a knife as the
weapon of offence. In view of the above circumstances, the evidence of the eye-witness in court
that he accused stabbed the deceased with a knife cannot be discredited merely on the ground
that the user of a knife is not mentioned in the FIR.”33

OMISSION OF WITNESSES NAME IN FIR

It is a misconception to regard FIR as an exhaustive document which should contain every

minute detail, including the entire case for the Prosecution and name of the witnesses. The main
purpose of FIR is to give information about a cognizable offence to the police officer and to set
the criminal trial into motion.34

Where the first informant was not an eye-witness and there was no evidence to show that the
eye-witnesses whose name were not mentioned in the FIR have disclosed the name of the
accused to the first informant, their evidence cannot be discarded only on the ground that their
names were not mentioned in the FIR.35 But when the names of the witnesses were told to the
informant and then also he didn’t mention their names in the FIR then such omission will create
a halo of suspicion on the story of Prosecution.36

When the complainant had full time and gave a detailed version of the occurrence then his
omission to mention two important eye-witnesses in FIR cannot be brushed aside lightly.37 It will
lead to undesirable results if the testimony of witnesses found reliable and trustworthy is
discarded on the ground that their names are absent in the F.I.R.38 It is not necessary that for a
witness to be relied upon his name has to be cited in the First Information Report. A witness can
see the occurrence and his presence at the spot may be made out from the statement given by the
witness and also the surrounding circumstances.39

33
Supra Note 27.
34
In Re Vuyyliri Ralna Reddy, A.I.R. 1963 A.P. 252.
35
Pralad v. State of Maharashtra, A.I.R. 1981 S.C. 1241.
36
Ram Kumar v. State of MP, A.I.R. 1975 S.C. 1026.
37
Sharaj Dutt v. State of Maharashtra, 1983 (1) Crimes 67.
38
Mathew alias Mathachan v. State of Kerala, A.I.R. 1991 S.C. 1376.
39
Thakur Mahto & Ors v. State of Bihar, 1971 Indlaw PAT 29.

13 | P a g e
 DAMODARAM SANJIVAYYA NATIONAL LAW UNIVERSITY
When the FIR contains the graphic detail of the occurrence and the care has been taken not to
omit even the minutest detail but the name of the witnesses are not mentioned then such FIR will
be disbelieved. When the FIR was lodged just after six or eleven hours of the occurrence in case
of murder of two persons and names of eye-witnesses were not mentioned in the FIR and no
satisfactory explanation was given, then such an omission is consistent only with the inference
that the alleged eye-witnesses were not present at the time of occurrence .40

The failure to mention the names of the eye-witnesses in FIR would not in any way affect the
testimony of those witnesses.41 The omission of the names of the two PWs in the FIR would not
in any way affect the testimony of those witnesses.42 It will lead to undesirable results if the
testimony of witnesses found reliable and trustworthy is discarded on the ground that their names
are absent in the F.I.R.43 The absence of names of witnesses in the FIR raises some suspicion
about their evidence and it will have to be scanned carefully. But omission of names of witnesses
in FIR is not sufficient by itself to entail rejection of their testimony. 44 Non-mentioning of an
eyewitness in the FIR does not indicate that he was nowhere near the scene of occurrence. The
FIR is not expected to be exhaustive in regard to the particulars and to contain a list of all
witnesses, but was introduced to shape the prosecution case.45

If some persons or witnesses were really present at the time of occurrence one would normally
accept their names in FIR. If their names are not found in FIR then it would, be presumed that
these persons were not eye-witnesses.46 The evidence of a witness should be knocked out if his
name does not find mention in the FIR.47 Non-recording of statement of witnesses named in FIR
on the day of occurrence despite sufficient opportunity, raises doubt about authenticity of
contents of FIR and testimony of Eyewitnesses.48 There is no requirement of law for mentioning
the names of all the witnesses in FIR, the object of which is only to set the criminal Law in
Motion.49

40
Kana Ram v. State of Rajasthan, 2002 Cri LJ 1867.
41
State of NCT of Delhi v. Vishwa Bandhu Billa, 1978 (4) S.C.C. 420.
42
Ashok Kumar v.State of NCT of Delhi, A.I.R. 1977 S.C. 1304.
43
Mathew alias Mathachan v. State of Kerala, A.I.R. 1991 S.C. 1376.
44
State of UP v. Lalla Singh, A.I.R. 1978 S.C. 368.
45
Sevaka Perumal v. State of Tamil Nadu, A.I.R. 1991 S.C. 1463.
46
State of UP v. Jagoo alias Jogdish, A.I.R. 1971 S.C. 1586.
47
Tameshwar Sahi v. State of UP, A.I.R. 1976 S.C. 59.
48
State of UP v. Bhagwan & Ors., A.I.R. 1997 S.C. 3292.
49
Bhagwan Singh v. State of UP, 2002 Cri LJ 2024.

14 | P a g e
 DAMODARAM SANJIVAYYA NATIONAL LAW UNIVERSITY
In Bachas Patimayum Thampon v State of Manipur50, it was held that the names of the PW must
be mentioned in the FIR or in complaint. The absence of their names creates suspicion and their
statements will have to be carefully examined. However, their statements will not be rejected on
merely on this ground.

In State v. Arun alias Arun Kumar Pradhan51, it was held that FIR isn't an encyclopedia. It isn't
most important thing in the world of a case. Such a report gets the law under way and at the
phase of examination; the subtleties can be accumulated and topped off. Thus when the FIR has
not been lodged by eye-witnesses to the event, yet by Gram Rakshi, at that point non-notice of
names of two observers might be of some importance, yet it would not be adequate, without
anyone else's input to involve dismissal of the declaration of a witness.

In Rakka Dineshan v. State of Kerala52, it was held that at the point when there is autonomous
and reliable evidence that eye-witness not named in the FIR was present during the event, there
is no confidence to dismiss it on the sole ground that his name is obviously missing in the FIR.
The significance of the FIR can't be sidelined as it is first in purpose of time and as it is made
when the memory of the witness is crisp and it is far-fetched that he had chances of creation and
embellishments. In any case, it will prompt unwanted outcomes if the disposition of witnesses
found trustworthy and reliable is disposed of on the ground that their names are missing in the
FIR.

In Dr. Krishna Pal v State of UP53, it was held that there is no necessity of referencing the names
of all witnesses in the FIR. At the point when the commission of homicide was seen by various
people, however first informant was not an eye-witness and when FIR was lodged in the wake of
conversing with the witnesses present on the spot at that point, the situation, non-mention of
name of one of the eye-witnesses in FIR would not be lethal.

In Chittarlal v State of Rajasthan54, Motilal gifted a house to Ganga Bai. She sold the house to
Bharat Lal. Chiitar Lal(A) wanted to buy the house but Bharat Lal denied. One day around 7 am,

50
A.I.R. 1967 Mani 30.
51
1984 (2) O.L.R. 777.
52
1990 Cr LJ 1361
53
A.I.R. 1996 S.C. 733.
54
2003 Indlaw S.C. 524.

15 | P a g e
 DAMODARAM SANJIVAYYA NATIONAL LAW UNIVERSITY
Lottar Lal(D) was going to his field. He was stopped by the A. There was a verbal altercation
between them and meanwhile A stabbed D. the entire incident was witnessed from roof top by
Nathu Lal (PW-6), Dhan Raj (PW-3) and Shiv Prakash ((PW-5). FIR was lodged by Heera Lal
(PW-1) and all the statements of the witnesses were recorded. PW-1 omitted the name of PW-3
as witness. Matter came up for trail. PW-5 and PW-6 in their cross-examination departed from
their statement and the conviction was done by the Trial Court on the sole testimony of PW-3.
On appeal, the judgement of the Trial Court was upheld by the HC. A approached the SC
through SLP. Accused raised three contentions before the SC. Firstly, PW-3’s name was not
there in the witness list. So, his testimony cannot be relied upon and conviction cannot be based
on his testimony. Secondly, Conviction in grave offences cannot be based upon the sole
testimony of a witness. SC stated that the person who lodged the FIR was under a mental trauma
thus he is bound to make mistake. PW-3’S testimony is reliable. Thirdly, on the day of
occurrence, PW-3 was writing his examination. The attendance register was called and there
PW-3 was marked absent. SC stated that the quality of evidence matters and not the quantity of
evidences. The judgemnet passed by the two lower courts was upheld by the SC.

NON-MENTIONING OF DETAILS IN FIR LEADING TO ADVERSE PRESUMPTION

When important facts of occurrence were omitted form F.I.R. then version given at trial would
not be worthy of credence.55 An omission in the F.I.R. of a clear accusation against the accused
is to be considered as a prominent circumstance which may tilt the scale in favour of the
accused.56

In Wilayat Khan v. State of UP57, the SC held that “Where the telegram about murder given
almost immediately after the offence was committed, does not mention the names of the accused,
the omission is a strong circumstance in favour of the accused. Though FIR is a previous
statement which can strictly speaking only be used to corroborate or contradict the maker, yet
omissions of important facts, affecting the probabilities of the case are relevant under S. 11 of the
Evidence Act in judging the veracity of the prosecution case.”

55
State of Rajasthan v. Ram Narayan, 1986 Cr LR Raj 62.
56
Podyami Yoga v.State of MP, 1964 (1) Cr LJ 455.
57
A.I.R. 1953 S.C. 122.

16 | P a g e
 DAMODARAM SANJIVAYYA NATIONAL LAW UNIVERSITY
In State of MP v. Nisar58, it was held by the apex court that “it is to be noted that the FIR was
lodged much after the so-called extra-judicial confession was made. Evidence on record shows
that the body of Khandhai was lying exposed in the jungle and his lathi and Khomari were lying
close-by. IN the FIR, there was no reference to the so called extra judicial confession by the
accused. Information Bhaiyala’s explanation that he may have forgotten to disclose this fact to
the police while lodging the FIR is totally improbable and wholly unacceptable. If in fact there
was any confession as claimed that would have been the first thing to be mentioned and not that
there was suspicion of the accused being the assailant. Raghvendra Singh Baghel, PW-12 had
admitted that the body of Chherkoo was lying about 100 paces from the dead body of Khandhai.
The High Court rightly noticed that no disclosure was necessary for locating the dead body. The
axe and the khomari were also lying close by and even a casual search would have revealed the
dead bodies and the articles. The Chemical Examiner in his report Ex. P-37 had found that the
axe was stained with human blood. Curiously, the blood group was not ascertained. It was,
therefore, not possible to conclude that the axe was used for killing the two deceased persons.”

In RK Pande v. State of MP59, “The FIR was lodged after four hours of the murder of the
deceased by the father of the deceased. Mother and two sisters of the deceased were the eye-
witnesses to the fact of stabbing the deceased by the appellant but this fact was nowhere
mentioned in the FIR. It was held by the apex court that non-mentioning of the witnesses name in
the FIR is a substantive omission which seriously impeach the credibility of the Informant.”

In Mohammad Abdul Hafeez v. State of AP60, it was held that “no importance can be attached to
the omission of non-mentioning the names of the accused in the FIR, because, it is distinctly
possible that the victim Satyanarayana was caught unaware and may not be knowing the accused
prior to that date of incident, and therefore, may not be able to give their names. But he could
have at least given some description of the persons who robbed him, at any rate, he could have
given some description of the person - appellant who was supposed to be sitting next to him and
who thrust his hand in his pocket and removed Rs. 100/-. The total absence of any such
description would have provided a yard-stick to evaluate the identification of the present
appellant at a later date by the victim Satyanarayana would render his later identification weak.”

58
A.I.R. 2007 S.C. 2316.
59
A.I.R. 1975 S.C. 1026.
60
A.I.R. 1983 S.C. 367.

17 | P a g e
 DAMODARAM SANJIVAYYA NATIONAL LAW UNIVERSITY
In Mahesh Chander v State of Delhi61, the SC held that “where the FIR didn’t mention the name
of one of the accused even though the witnesses claimed to have known and seen the accused
persons running away from the place of occurrence, the conduct of the witnesses created a strong
suspicion in the veracity of the prosecution case.”

In Merambhai Punjabhai Khachar v State of Gujarat62, the apex court held that “The appellant is
one of the accused who had neither been named in the FIR nor in any of dying declarations, nor
in the statements made before the Police. Nevertheless, in the Court he was named by PW- 2,
PW-3 and PW-4. PW-2 stated in his evidence, that when his police statement was getting
recorded, he recollected that the name of this appellant was left out from the complaint, but no
steps were taken by him to get his name recorded. The appellant was given the benefit of doubt
and thus, acquitted.”

In Jang Singh v. State of Rajasthan63, there were two groups- one of victims (2 members) and the
other of Accused (4 members). Both the groups boarded the bus together. At the next stop,
Accused hopped down of the bus, dragged the victims and started beating them. Conductor asked
everyone to board the bus. Everyone boarded but one. The victims were taken to the hospital and
then the informant accompanied the constable to the place of occurrence. When the Informant
was lodging FIR he stated that both the victims died. However, it was told by the Constable that
one died and one survived. Trial Court convicted A1 & A2 and acquitted A3 & A4. On an appeal
to the High Court, all four of them were convicted. The accused approached SC through SLP and
produced two contentions. Firstly, offence happened in a public place then how come the entire
testimony is given by a single PW. What about the rest of the passengers. Secondly, Why the
factum of one died and one survived is not there in the FIR? Why the FIR is not signed by the
Informant? SC after observing both the contentions acquitted all the accused.

61
A.I.R. 1991 S.C. 1108.
62
A.I.R. 1996 S.C. 3236.
63
(2001) 9 S.C.C. 704.

18 | P a g e
 DAMODARAM SANJIVAYYA NATIONAL LAW UNIVERSITY

NON-MENTIONING OF DETAILS IN FIR NOT LEADING TO ADVERSE

PRESUMPTION

In Pandurang v. State of Hyderabad64 , the SC held that if sufficient and convincing explanation
is given for the non-mentioning of the names of the accused or the witnesses, no adverse
presumption need to be drawn against the prosecution neither the witnesses will be disbelieved.

In Karthar Singh v State of Punjab65, it was held that in a homicidal case where the informant
forgot to mention the name of the A due to mental trauma but did so forthwith as the report was
read out loud to him and his biometric was taken, then in such a case the credibility of FIR
cannot be questioned.

In State of Haryana v Sher Singh66, it was held that the FIR need not contain the subtleties of the
event. Non-mentioning of the certain facts in the FIR that the witness had already informed the
event to the locals is unessential. The exclusion is a simple overlooking of minute detail and isn't
an omission. The testimony of PW-3 (deceased’s spouse) and PW-4 (deceased’s sister) can't be
disregarded exclusively on the ground that they are interested witnesses. PW-3 was disoriented at
the merciless killing of her spouse and brother-in-law. In such a circumstance, she couldn't be
required to make reference to every one of the subtleties in the FIR. The proof of PW-10 can't be
dismissed exclusively on the ground that non-notice of the additional legal admission of the
Respondent-1 had been made in the FIR.

In Rattan Singh v State of Himachal Pradesh67, it was held that “The Criminal Court should not
be fastidious with mere omissions in First Information Statement, since such Statements cannot
be expected to be a chronicle of every detail of what happened, nor to contain an exhaustive
catalogue of the events which took place. The person who furnishes first information to
authorities might be fresh with the facts but he need not necessarily have the skill or ability to
reproduce details of the entire story without anything missing there from. Some may miss even
important details in a narration. Quite often the Police Officer, who takes down the first
information, would record what the informant conveys to him without resorting to any elicitatory

64
A.I.R. 1955 S.C. 216.
65
A.I.R. 1977 S.C. 349.
66
A.I.R. 1981 S.C. 1021.
67
1996 Indlaw S.C. 4003.

19 | P a g e
 DAMODARAM SANJIVAYYA NATIONAL LAW UNIVERSITY
exercise. It is the voluntary narrative of the informant without interrogation which usually goes
into such statement. So any omission therein has to be considered along with the other evidence
to determine whether the fact so omitted never happened at all.”

In Surjit Singh alias Gurmit Singh v State of Punjab68, it was observed by the SC that neither FIR
is a encyclopedia nor it is a substantial evidence. Its main purpose is to set the criminal law in
motion and to inform the officer incharge of a police station about the commission of a
cognizable offence. It is used only for the purpose of corroborating the evidence and the
statements of the witnesses given to the police u/s 161 or 162. In this case, the informant was a
young woman who has seen his husband to be killed in front of her own eyes. FIR was lodged
within three hours of occurrence. Omission of certain irrelevant facts by her cannot cloud the
version of the prosecution. A took a leading and prominent part in committing the murder of her
husband which was corroborated by the statements of the eye-witnesses. SC held that the HC
was correct in convicting the A.

In Jagtar Singh v State of Punjab69, it was held that no one can expect FIR to contain each and
every minute detail of the occurrence. Non-disclosure of some of the irrelevant facts in FIR that
the A forgot to take his tractor and left it at the spot is of no help to the defence or to prosecution.
No prejudice can be done to the A because of non-mentioning of the above stated fact.
Furthermore, the inquest report made it very clear that the tractor was seized from the place of
commission of crime.

In Gurnam Kaur v Bakshish Singh70, it was held by the SC that the FIR given by a rustic,
illiterate laywoman cannot be treated as a summary of the prosecution case. There will be a
series of omission in the FIR lodged by such woman. A mere omission to mention an incidental
fact cannot prove fatal to the prosecution.

Mohan Chand v. State of Uttarakhand71, victim, who was a major, went to a cheap grain store to
get some grains but the shop was closed. When she came back, her mother scolded her. So, she
again went to the shop. Again the shop was closed thus she was sad. Basant Ballah approached

68
A.I.R. 1992 S.C. 1389.
69
A.I.R. 1998 S.C. 628.
70
A.I.R. 1981 S.C. 631.
71
A.I.R. 2009 SC 1896.

20 | P a g e
 DAMODARAM SANJIVAYYA NATIONAL LAW UNIVERSITY
her and started consoling her. He suggested her to run away with him. He enticed and she eloped
with him. This incident happened on the afternoon of Feb 6th. In between the night of Feb 6th and
7th, he raped her. He told her that first you go to Champavat Bus Station don’t board the bus.
Then go to Deodar tree at a distance of two kms ahead and wait there. I will board the bus and
then from there I will pick you up. She did as he said and he picked her up. She noticed that
Basant Bhallah was accompanied by another man, Trilok Singh. They started heading towards
Tanakpur. They got down at Tanakpur Bareiley Highway and proceeded towards Pilibhit. The
girl asked him that where are we going. He told that we are going to Pilibhit and will marry at
Poornagiri Temple. They took shelter in the house of Khemanand. He was a local liquor
salesman and his accommodation was within that shop. At night, the girl was approached by
Khemanand and he raped her. She narrated this to Basant Ballah but he did nothing. From
Pilibhit they started their journey towards Tikri. At Tikri, the girl was made to stay with one of
the sisters of Trilok Singh. They started enquiring that whether and FIR is lodged against Basant
Ballah. He was informed that a missing report was lodged against him by the maternal uncle of
the girl. From Tikri, they travelled to Tanakpur and at Tanakpur, Basant Ballah got down and
told Trilok Singh to drop the girl to Champavat. He made friends with Mohan Chand who was a
truck driver. Mohan Chand along with his cleaner agreed to carry the girl to Champavat. They
raped her and then threw her out of the truck. She sustained injuries and somehow managed to
reach her home. Missing report was made an FIR and chargesheet was filed and the matter was
committed to the Court of Sessions. During this period, Basant Ballah died and Trilok Singh
became Approver. All the three accused (Mohan Chand, Khemanand and the cleaner) were
convicted by the Trial Court. On appeal, the judgement of the Trial Court was uphe;d by the
HC. Through SLP they approached SC. Before SC, they contended that the victim has omitted
the name of the cleaner in the FIR and this being a discrepancy, questions the veracity of the
version of the Prosecution. SC stated that the girl was traumatized thereby you cannot expect her
to know the name of each and everyone. She correctly identified them in the Test Identification
Parade. So, there is no omission. SC upheld the judgemnet given by the two lower Courts.

In Asharam & Anr v State of MP72, 5 victims after planting seeds were returning to their
respective homes. They were attacked by A(1-5). When they were attacked, two victims (Bhura

72
A.I.R. 2007 S.C. 2594.

21 | P a g e
 DAMODARAM SANJIVAYYA NATIONAL LAW UNIVERSITY
and Sukhdev) escaped and were hiding behind the hay stack and from that place they witnessed
the entire incident. Nandan, Kosabai and Tikaram sustained injuries. FIR was lodged by Nandan
and before Trial Court there were many contradictions. Firstly, Nandan stated in his cross-
examination that he never went to Police Station to lodge FIR whereas: the FIR shows his
signature. Secondly, Kosabai stated that when the assault took place Bhura & Sukhdev were
present wheras; Nandan stated that Bhura & Sukhdev were not present. Thirdly, Kosabai stated
that all five accused were hiding behind a tree and all of them came together whereas, Nandan
stated that they came one after another. Fourthly, Nandan mentioned the name of Asharam &
Dayaram who participated in his assault whereas; Kosabai stated that along with them,
Mansaram & Tukaram were also there. Fifthly, Tikaram stated that the place of occurrence was
near to Nandan’s field whereas; Nandan stated that the place of occurrence was 1 km away from
Chunni’s land. Lastly, Mansaram contended that on the day of occurrence of the incident he was
hospitalized becaused of typhoid. So, his presence is highly impossible. Trial Court acquitted
them. On appeal, HC convicted all of them. A approached SC through SLP. SC stated there has
to be a thread of commonality. SC observed that firstly, Nandan, Kosabai and Tikaram were
brought to home and then Nandan told Ramlal to go to Police Station. Police arrived at his house
and then FIR was lodged at his home. Secondly, at the time of assault Bhura and Sukhdev were
there but during the continuity of the offence they escaped. Thirdly, it doesn’t matter whether
they came together or one after another. Fourthly, Asharam attacked Nandan with Ballam which
was blocked by him and from behind he was hit by Dayaram.Nandan felt unconscious and later
Nandan and Kosabai were attacked by Asharam, Dayaram, Mnasaram and Tukaram. Fifthly,
both of them are referring to the same spot. Lastly, when HC asked for medical report, Tikaram
failed to submit the same. SC stated that the chain of causation is not broken and the judgement
passed by the HC was upheld.

22 | P a g e
 DAMODARAM SANJIVAYYA NATIONAL LAW UNIVERSITY

CONCLUSION

Omission of every minute detail in the FIR is immaterial when it is not given by the eye-witness
but on the basis of the information received by another person.73 When the facts that are material
to the case are omitted in the FIR then the version of the prosecution given at Trial Court would
be unreliable.74 When FIR is lodged by a rustic woman, it is bound to have omission. The
omission to mention an incidental fact cannot nullify the case of the prosecution.75 When the
Informant is badly injured, it is bound to have certain omissions in the FIR. 76 FIR need not
contain every minute details of the act as it is generally written under a circumstance of haste.77

The FIR need not contain every facts and circumstances of the case which the Informant might
know. Even if the incident is observed by a group of persons, the reports lodged by each one of
them separately will not be identical. The contents would vary from person to person depending
upon his estimation of relevancy.78 Matters of details need not be mentioned in the FIR. If the
prosecution has sufficient evidence which can explain the omission and discrepancies then it will
not put prosecution case out of the court.79 If there is no explanation or evidence to the omission
then the court will refuse to consider the veracity of the case of the prosecution.80

73
Awadhi Yadav v. State of Bihar, A.I.R. 1971 S.C. 69.
74
Balbir Singh v. State of Punjab, A.I.R. 1957 S.C. 216.
75
Gurman Kaur v. Bakshish Singh, A.I.R. 1981 S.C. 631.
76
Maqsooden v. State of UP, A.I.R. 1983 S.C. 126.
77
A.I.R. 1984 S.C. 1622.
78
State v. Kanhu Charan Barik, 1983 CrLJ 133.
79
State of UP v. Sahai, A.I.R. 1981 S.C. 1442.
80
Ram Janam Singh v. State of Bihar, A.I.R. 1956 S.C. 643.

23 | P a g e
 DAMODARAM SANJIVAYYA NATIONAL LAW UNIVERSITY

BIBLIOGRAPHY

BOOKS REFFERED –

1. KN Chandrasekharan & V. Kelkar, Lectures on Criminal Procedure, 562 (1st ed. 2017).
2. Ratanlal & Dhirajlal, The Code of Criminal Procedure, 436 (22nd ed. 2013).
3. RV Kelkar, RV Kelkar’s Criminal Procedure, 593 (6th ed. 2014).
4. DD Basu, Criminal Procedure Code, 379 (6th ed. 2017).

ARTICLES USED –

1. Dr. Raj Kumar, Evidentiary value of the FIR; Introspection 4 GILS, 1-17 (2016).
2. Jamshed et al., First Information Report : A Critical Study, 1 IJIIR, 21-25 (2016).
3. Stanley Z Fischer, Just the facts, Ma’am : Lying and the Omission of Exculpatory
Evidence in Police Reports, 28 New Eng. L. Rev, 1-62 (1993).

WEBSITES –

1) www.heinonline.com
2) www.lawctopus.com
3) www.lexisnexis.com
4) www.manupatra.com
5) www.scconline.com
6) www.westlaw.com

24 | P a g e