FIR (First Information Report) is the pillar of criminal cases.
Under the code of criminal procedure and section 154, the officer in charge of the police station takes FIR.
In the case of a cognizable offense, police can lodge an FIR in the Second Schedule and third columns of the CRPC provided that which offense is cognizable and non-cognizable.
In the meantime, if we shortly see that according to the law in which offense police can arrest without warrant that is a cognizable offense.
So, when a cognizable offense is held the information is too important to the relevance of the trial stage. More of the case decision brief about evidentiary values of FIR.
Comparative Case Study
In the case of State vs Tajul Islam, 48 DLR 305 the court comments that there is a clear conflict between the version given in the FIR and the story made out in the course of the trial, it becomes imperative for the court to note the conflict between them.
On other case decisions, 16 DLR 189 A comparison between two such versions of the case is not only permissible but imperative. In the following two case decisions, we see that FIR has some evidentiary value but it’s too little.
FIR is the earliest record of a case, has got much importance enabling the court to see what the prosecution case when it was started and to check up subsequent embellishment or any departure.
The commentaries are 5 BLD 255, 40 DLR 97: 31 DLR 16 states. On basis of the fact and FIR, the evidentiary value belongs. According to article no. 111 of the Bangladesh constitution, the decisions of the Appellate Division of the Hon’ble Supreme court are binding upon all subordinate courts.
Many Supreme court divisions pass judgment in different cases on the FIR has no evidentiary value but in practice, it has enough value.
In the AIR 1930 Mad. 632 states that If a witness during session trial makes a different statement to that attributed to the witness in the FIR that discredits the witness in the session court but does not make the statement in the FIR, the evidence upon that matter in the case.
On the other case decisions, 39 DLR (1987) 437 provides, where the accused persons are named in the promptly lodged report and version disclosed therein is supported by medical evidence, it would not be necessary to look for corroboration and the best evidence available on record will be enough to bring home the guilt to the accused person.
Evidentiary Values of FIR under Evidence Act
The Evidence act 1872 is a procedural Law and how evidence should show in the court this act provides in all sections.
If we do a comparison of the statement of the FIR and the next statement to the police or magistrate it’s clear. Section 157 of the evidence act provides `In order to corroborate the testimony of a witness, any former statement made by such witness relating to the same fact at or about the time when the fact took place, or before any authority legally competent to investigate the fact.’
Read also: Abuse of Arrest and Police Remand
In the case of Nasir Ali PLD 1957 (SC) (Ind) 297, The FIR is not the main and primary evidence. The statement of the FIR has used only the purpose of supporting section 157 of the evidence act or used to oppose Section 145 of the evidence act.
Further, section 145 of the evidence act provides, `A witness may be cross-examined as to previous statements made by him in writing or reduced into writing, and relevant to matters in question, without such writing being shown to him, or being proved; but, if it is intended to contradict him by the writing, his attention must, before the writing can be proved, be called to those parts of it which are to be used for the purpose of contradicting him.’
By analyzing all the above case decisions we see that the FIR has no evidentiary value in a case and also some judgment comments it has some evidentiary value in practical. So, it’s clear that the evidentiary value of the FIR depends on the fact.