Contents Of FIR Not Admissible In Evidence & Can’t Be Proved Through Investigating Officer If Informant’s Death Has No Nexus With Complaint Lodged: SC
The Appeal before the Apex Court was filed at the instance of the mother of the deceased assailing the order acquitting the respondents of the offence under Sections 306, 498A read with Section 34 of the IPC.
Justice JB Pardiwala, Justice R Mahadevan, Supreme Court
The Supreme Court held that, in case the death of the informant has no nexus with the complaint lodged i.e. he died a natural death and did not succumb to the injuries inflicted on him in relation to a matter, the contents of the F.I.R. would not be admissible in evidence. In such circumstances, the contents cannot be proved through the Investigating Officer.
The Appeal before the Apex Court was filed at the instance of the mother of the deceased (de facto complainant) assailing the Judgment of the Bombay High Court acquitting the respondent (original accused persons) of the offence punishable under Sections 306, 498A read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).
The Division Bench comprising Justice J.B. Pardiwala and Justice R. Mahadevan asserted, “It is absolutely incorrect on the part of the Trial Court and the High Court to say that in the absence of the first informant, the police officer can prove the contents of the F.I.R. as per Section 67 of the Evidence Act.”
Factual Background
The deceased was married to Respondent No.1, past 1½ years before the date of the incident in question. It was alleged by the appellant that her daughter committed suicide as she was incessantly harassed by her husband, father-in-law, mother-in-law and first wife of the husband. The post-mortem report revealed that the cause of death was due to drowning. It was the case of the appellant that her daughter committed suicide by jumping into a well. A charge sheet came to be filed against all four accused persons.
The Trial Court held all four accused persons guilty of the offence enumerated above and sentenced them to undergo 10 years of rigorous imprisonment with a fine of Rs1000. The High Court, in appeal, acquitted all four accused persons. Aggrieved thereby, the appellant-mother approached the Apex Court.
Reasoning
On an appreciation of the facts and the submissions, the Bench observed that there was no cogent or reliable evidence based on which it could be said that the accused persons abated the commission of suicide. “Mere harassment or cruelty is not sufficient to infer abetement. There has to be some credible evidence that the accused persons aided or instigated the deceased in some manner to take the drastic step of putting an end to her life”, it said.
The Bench, however, didn’t rule out the possibility of the husband pressurizing the deceased to transfer the land once again on his name. However, it was explained that even such instances, by themselves, may not be sufficient to conclude that the deceased was left with no alternative but to commit suicide. “ Even with the aid of presumption under Section 113A of the Evidence Act, it is difficult to say that the accused persons abetted the commission of suicide. It is possible that the deceased might have felt bad because the first wife came back to the matrimonial home and being hyper sensitive might have taken the extreme step to commit suicide”, it held.
In the case on hand, the First Information Report was lodged by the father of the deceased. However, before the father could step into the witness box, he passed away. In such circumstances, the Trial Court permitted the Investigating Officer to prove the contents of the First Information Report and read into evidence as per Section 67 of the Evidence Act. One of the most important aspects dealt by the Bench was about the procedural law so far as it relates to proving the contents of the First Information Report through the Investigating Officer.
The Court explained that the FIRs can be registered by a victim, a witness or someone else with the knowledge of the crime. The police can record three different kinds of statements. The first kind of statement can be recorded as an F.I.R., the second kind of statement is one which can be recorded by the police during the investigation, and the third kind of statement is any kind of statement which would not fall under any of the two categories mentioned above.
Referring to the judgment in Damodar Prasad v. State of U.P. (1975), the Bench said, “If the informant dies, the First Information Report can be, unquestionably, used as a substantive evidence. A prerequisite condition must be fulfilled before the F.I.R. is taken as a substantive piece of evidence i.e. the death of the informant must have nexus with the F.I.R. filed or somehow having some link with any evidence regarding the F.I.R.”
As per the Bench, for an F.I.R. lodged by a deceased person to be treated as substantial, its contents must be proved. It has to be corroborated and proved for there to be any value of the same in the case. The F.I.R. can be used by the defence to impeach the credit of the person who lodged the F.I.R. under Section 154(3) of the Evidence Act. “In case the death of the informant has no nexus with the complaint lodged i.e. he died a natural death and did not succumb to the injuries inflicted on him in relation to a matter, the contents of the F.I.R. would not be admissible in evidence. In such circumstances, the contents cannot be proved through the Investigating Officer”, the Bench held.
The Court further added, “The Investigating Officer, in the course of his deposition, should not be permitted to depose the exact contents of the F.I.R. so as to make them admissible in evidence. All that is permissible in law is that the Investigating Officer can, in his deposition, identify the signature of the first informant and that of his own on the First Information Report and he can depose about the factum of the F.I.R. being registered by him on a particular date on a particular police station.”
In light of such factual and legal aspects, the Bench dismissed the Appeal.
Cause Title: X v. Y & Ors. (Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 173)