Read Time: 16 minutes

Synopsis

The Supreme Court has said if the informant dies, the FIR can be, unquestionably, used as a substantive evidence, however, a prerequisite condition must be fulfilled, i.e. the death of the informant must have nexus with the FIR filed or somehow have some link with any evidence regarding it.

A bench of Justices J B Pardiwala and R Mahadevan said for an FIR 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 FIR can be used by the defence to impeach the credit of the person who lodged it under Section 154(3) of the Evidence Act, the court said.

Court explained 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 FIR would not be admissible in evidence. In such circumstances, the contents cannot be proved through the Investigating Officer.

"The Investigating Officer, in the course of his deposition, should not be permitted to depose the exact contents of the FIR 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 FIR and he can depose about the factum of it being registered by him on a particular date on a particular police station," the bench said.

Upholding acquittal of husband and his relatives in a case related to abetment to suicide of his wife, the bench said, it was 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 could prove the contents of the FIR as per Section 67 of the Evidence Act.

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 is one which can be recorded as an FIR, 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, the bench said.

"Evidence is the matter of testimony manifesting the fact on a particular precision or circumstances. The FIR is not by itself a substantial piece of evidence and the statement made therein cannot be considered as evidence unless it falls within the purview of Section 32 of the Evidence Act," the bench said.

If it is an admitted fact that the original first informant died because of the injuries caused by the applicants, then the relative importance of a FIR is far greater than any other statement recorded by the police during the course of the investigation, the court said.

The bench pointed out, it is the foremost information the police gets about the commission of an offence and which can be used to corroborate the story put-forward by the first informant under Section 157 of the Evidence Act or to contradict his version by facts under Section 145 of the Evidence Act in case he is summoned as a witness in the case by the court.

"It may happen that the informant is the accused himself. In such cases, the FIR lodged by him cannot be used as an evidence against him because it is embodied in the basic structure of our Constitution that a person cannot be compelled to be a witness against himself," the bench said.

In certain cases, the court further said, the FIR can be used under Section 32(1) of the Evidence Act or under Section 8 of the Evidence Act as to the cause of informant's death or as apart of the informant's conduct.

In other words, if the first informant has passed away before stepping into the witness box, then whether the contents of such FIR can be proved through the evidence of the Investigating Officer and read into the evidence.

In the case on hand, the FIR 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 FIR and read into evidence as per Section 67 of the Evidence Act.

The case related to a plea filed by the mother of the deceased assailing the Bombay High Courts order which allowed an appeal filed by the four accused, acquitting them of the offence punishable under Sections 306,498A read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).

The deceased Dev Kanya was married to Vishwanath past one and half years before the date of incident in question. It was her case 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.

Upon appreciation of the oral as well as documentary evidence on record, the trial court held all the four accused persons guilty of the offence enumerated above and sentenced them to undergo 10 years of rigorous imprisonment with fine of Rs 1000.

The high court, however, upon re-appreciation and re-evaluation of the oral as well as documentary evidence on record allowed the appeal and acquitted all the four accused persons of the charges.

Although the FIR was lodged by father of the deceased yet before the trial commenced, he passed away.

After hearing the counsel for the parties, the bench opined that no error not to speak of any error of law could be said to have been committed by the high court in acquitting all the four accused persons.

Court said there was no cogent or any reliable evidence on the basis of which it could be said that the accused persons abated the commission of suicide.

"Mere harassment or cruelty is not sufficient to infer abetment. 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," the bench said.

The counsel appearing for the appellant sought to rely upon Section 113A of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872.

Referring to Ram Pyarey Vs the State of Uttar Pradesh, decided on January 9, 2025, the bench said, the true purport of Section 113A of the Evidence Act, more particularly in what manner it shall be applied, has been explained. It was then held when the courts below want to apply Section113A of the Evidence Act, the condition precedent is that there has to be first some cogent evidence as regards cruelty and harassment. In the absence of any cogent evidence as regards harassment or abetment in any form like aiding or instigating, the court cannot straightway invoke Section 113A and presume that the accused abetted the commission of suicide, the bench pointed out.

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, the bench said.

Case Title: Lalita Vs Vishwanath & Ors