Read Time: 14 minutes

Synopsis

The Supreme Court on October 25, 2024, said that even though the FIR is not meant to contain chronicles of all intricate and minute details, it could be used to corroborate its maker under Section 157 of the Evidence Act or to contradict its maker viz, the informant under Section 145 of the Evidence Act to establish whether he is a trustworthy witness or not. 

A bench of Justices C T Ravikumar and Sudhanshu Dhulia emphasised that the FIR is not an encyclopedia disclosing all facts and details relating to the entire prosecution case.

"There can be no doubt with respect to the position that the prime object of FIR, from the point of view of the informant is to set the criminal law in motion and from the point of the investigating authorities is to obtain information about the alleged activity so as to enable to take suitable steps to trace and book the guilty," the court said, adding, "thus, it can be said that FIR is an important document, though not a substantial piece of evidence, and may be put in evidence to support or contradict the evidence of its maker viz, the informant". 

"Whether the omission(s) is one which seriously impeaches the credibility of the witness and is sufficient to reject the testimony of the informant would depend upon the question whether it is of an important fact and whether that fact was within the knowledge of the informant, going by the case of prosecution unraveled through the witness concerned," the court clarified.

The bench explained this legal position with regard to the FIR while dismissing an appeal filed by the Madhya Pradesh government against the High Court's January 31, 2013 judgment, acquitting three accused, Ramjan Khan and others, by reversing their conviction in case of murder of one Naseem Khan on October 1, 1996.

Referring to law with regard to appeal against acquittal, the bench said merely because the trial court and the High Court render divergent findings, it is not that the Supreme Court should invariably scrutinise the evidence once again and should entertain an appeal. 

However, it added that in the appeal against conviction in a murder case under Section 374 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, a proper analysis of the evidence and accepting or rejecting, the appreciation of evidence by the trial court must reflect in the judgment of the High Court. In other words, the disposal of the appeal under Section 374, CrPC, should not be by cryptic or nonreasoned order, it stressed.

"When the High Court acquitted the convict(s) in the appeal filed under Section 374, CrPC, in reversal of conviction, by granting the benefit of doubt after a proper appreciation of evidence interference is permissible and justifiable only if it is infected with perversity in troth, the prosecution was not successful in establishing the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt," the bench said.

In the instant case, the court noted the trial court relied upon the testimony of minor brothers and mother of the victim but the High Court found them as unreliable, owing to material improvements and omissions.

"While being cross-examined that she (mother) had not deposed at all about a dying declaration made to her by the deceased son," the court noted.

The prosecution has attempted to establish the existence of an oral dying declaration. It is to be noted that the dying declaration itself is not a strong piece of evidence and therefore, when it is verbal and that too, allegedly made to a close relative (in this case allegedly to the mother), evidence of mother about the oral dying declaration was to be treated with care and caution, the court said.

The bench said the defence had brought out that neither in FIR nor in her statement recorded under Section 161, CrPC, the mother stated about the oral dying declaration made to her by the deceased. 

That apart, the court said, the prosecution had failed to establish that when the mother reached the place of occurrence the deceased was in a fit state of mind to speak or talk relevantly. Except her statement in the court, there is no scrap of evidence in that regard in the case on hand, it added.

The court noted on this aspect nothing was brought out from minor brothers or from any other witnesses. 

There can be no doubt that oral dying declaration should be of such a nature as to inspire full confidence of the court in its correctness, it stressed.

"In the contextual situation, we have no hesitation to hold that the High Court was perfectly justified in considering the oral testimony of the mother and taking serious note of the serious omission brought out from her, on being confronted with the FIR and her previous statement made to police, that she had not stated anything about such an oral dying declaration made by her deceased son," the bench said.

The court opined that her evidence was nothing but ‘hearsay evidence’ as according to her she was told about their attack on Naseem Khan only by her other minor sons, and there was no case for the prosecution that she had witnessed the respondents herein attacking deceased Naseem Khan.

The bench said the High Court had rightly given due consideration to all such aspects, including her deposition that she got no enmity with the family of accused persons and got no dispute in respect of land, and ultimately discredited her testimony.

The bench also pointed out the prosecution had not revealed, rather established, the genesis of the incident that led to the death of Naseem Khan. 

In other words, none of the witnesses including younger brothers had deposed as to the genesis of the incident. This assumes relevance as the mother herself deposed that she got no enmity with the families of the accused and got no land dispute with them, the bench said. 

"We are of the considered view that there can be no good reason to hold that the prosecution had succeeded in conclusively proving the guilt of the accused/respondents herein beyond reasonable doubt warranting displacement of the finding of the High Court that in view of the omissions and contradictions, the oral testimonies of the witnesses are not reliable and the respondents herein are entitled to the benefit of doubt," the court said.

The bench finally held that the respondents/accused were entitled to benefit of doubt and consequently to acquittal.

"We do not find any reason to hold that it is not a reasonably possible view though not the only view that could be taken," the bench said, dismissing the appeal.

Case Title: The State of Madhya Pradesh Vs Ramjan Khan & Ors