FIR Not Substantive Piece Of Evidence; May Be Used For Purpose Of Contradiction U/S 145 Evidence Act: Madhya Pradesh High Court

The Apex Court was considering an appeal filed by the appellant under Section 173(1) of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 challenging the award passed Motor Accident Claims Tribunal.

The Single Bench of Justice Ratnesh Chandra Singh Bisen held, “It is also pertinent to mention that if the insurance company seeks to absolve itself from liability to pay compensation on the basis of the facts mentioned in the FIR, then the insurance company would be required to have the author of the FIR examined before the Court, because merely by exhibiting the FIR, it cannot be held that the entire contents of the FIR have been proved. It would also be appropriate to mention here that a First Information Report (FIR) is not substantive piece of evidence; rather, it is admissible as corroborative evidence and may be used for the purpose of contradiction under Section 145 of the Indian Evidence Act.”

Advocate Arvind Chawla represented the Appellant while Advocate Prabal Singh Rajput represented the Respondent.

Arguments

The appellant argued that the Tribunal had passed the order against the appellant (owner and driver) and exonerated the Insurance Company on the ground that as per the FIR, at the time of the accident, the deceased was sitting on the tractor. It was claimed that during the course of evidence, it became clear that at the time of the accident, the deceased was not sitting on the tractor; rather, he was on the road, dancing in front of the tractor.

The respondent claimed that after completion of the investigation, the charge-sheet was filed by the Investigating Officer against the driver before the criminal Court. However, neither the owner nor the driver filed any complaint before the Superintendent of Police or any other senior police officer against the Investigating Officer. It was thus submitted that the appellant could not take the plea that the contents of the FIR were wrongly mentioned.

Reasoning

On a perusal of the facts of the case, the Bench noted that the evidence produced by the applicants before the Tribunal established that the idol was being taken for Durga immersion and the deceased was dancing on the road at that time. The tractor driver drove the tractor negligently and ran it over the deceased, resulting in the death of Ramcharan.

Considering the testimony of the second applicant witness and the documents produced by the applicants, the Bench noted that this witness also sustained injuries in the accident. “Therefore, his presence at the place of occurrence at the time of the incident stands established. Furthermore, the insurance company, in order to establish its defence that the deceased Ramcharan was sitting on the tractor at the time of the incident and died after falling from the tractor, did not examine any eyewitness. Whereas, in order to prove its defence, the insurance company ought to have examined an eyewitness. Merely because the FIR contains a statement to this effect, it cannot automatically be held proved that the deceased Ramcharan was sitting on the tractor at the time of the incident”, it added.

Considering that the Tribunal, merely on the basis of the FIR, without it having been duly proved, concluded that the deceased was sitting in the tractor at the time of the accident and had fallen from it, resulting in the accident, the Bench stated, “Such a conclusion by the Tribunal is legally incorrect. The Tribunal's rejection of the testimony given by the eyewitness Ram Verma alias Ashu (Applicant Witness No. 2) is also not legally sustainable.”

The Bench opined that the Tribunal erred in holding that the deceased was travelling on the tractor and died after falling from it, merely on the basis of the FIR. As per the Bench, the evidence of the eyewitness Ram Verma alias Ashu, supported by the investigation and charge-sheet, established that the deceased was dancing on the road in front of the tractor when the tractor was driven rashly and negligently by the driver and ran over him. “Therefore, the finding of the Tribunal exonerating the Insurance Company from its liability cannot be sustained”, it held.

Thus, partly allowing the appeal, the Bench held that the Insurance Company would be liable to satisfy the award passed by the Tribunal in accordance with law.

Cause Title: Nil Kumar Patel v. Munni Bai Barman and Others (Neutral Citation:2026:MPHC-JBP:66811)

Appearance

Appellant: Advocate Arvind Chawla

Respondent: Advocates Prabal Singh Rajput, Aditya Narayan Sharma

Click here to read/download Order