Question: Whether the FIR given to the in-charge of the police station by the accused himself of the commission of a cognizable offence can be admissible evidence against himself. [HR.J.S. 2000] Find the answer to the mains question only on Legal Bites. [Whether the FIR given to the in-charge of the police station by the accused himself of… Read More »

Question: Whether the FIR given to the in-charge of the police station by the accused himself of the commission of a cognizable offence can be admissible evidence against himself. [HR.J.S. 2000] Find the answer to the mains question only on Legal Bites. [Whether the FIR given to the in-charge of the police station by the accused himself of the commission of a cognizable offence can be admissible evidence against himself. [HR.J.S. 2000] Answer As per section 25 of the Indian Evidence Act-...

Question: Whether the FIR given to the in-charge of the police station by the accused himself of the commission of a cognizable offence can be admissible evidence against himself. [HR.J.S. 2000]

Find the answer to the mains question only on Legal Bites. [Whether the FIR given to the in-charge of the police station by the accused himself of the commission of a cognizable offence can be admissible evidence against himself. [HR.J.S. 2000]

Answer

As per section 25 of the Indian Evidence Act- No confession made to a police officer, shall be proved as against a person accused of any offence.

The scope of the section entails that no part of a first information report lodged by the accused with the police could be admitted into evidence if it was in the nature of a confessional statement. The statement can, however, be admitted to identifying the accused as the maker of the report.

Where in a case of murder, the FIR given by the accused contained confession as well as incriminating facts, it was held to be not admissible in evidence. The confessional part of the FIR cannot be used in evidence against the accused except to the limited extent allowed by section 27. But the non-confessional part can be used against him as evidence of conduct under section 8.

For instance in Bheru Singh v. State of Rajasthan, (1994) 2 SCC 467, the statements showing the relationship of the accused with the deceased, the motive for multiple murders, presence of the sister-in-law at the scene, were not in nature of confessions, hence relevant under sections 7 and 8.

If the FIR is given to the police by the accused himself, it cannot possibly be used either for corroboration or contradiction because the accused cannot be a prosecution witness, and he would very rarely offer himself to be a defence witness under section 315 of the code.

Moreover, if the FIR is of a confessional nature it cannot be proved against the accused informant, because according to Section 25 of the Evidence Act, no confession made to a police officer can be proved as against a person accused of any offence but it might become relevant under section 8 of the Evidence Act as to his conduct.

If FIR given by the accused person is non-confessional, it may be admissible in evidence against the accused as an admission under section 21 of the Evidence Act, or again, as showing his conduct under section 8 of the Evidence Act.

The Supreme Court has observed on the said subject matter, stating that “the first information report gives information of the commission of a cognizable crime. It may be made by the complainant or by any other person knowing about the commission of such offence. It cannot be used as evidence against the person making it if in case, he himself is accused in the matter, neither to corroborate nor contradict other witnesses.”

Further, it may be noted that if any statement made to the police amounts to a confession, such a confession cannot be proved against a person accused of any offence.

However, this bar on proof of confession made to a police officer is partially lifted by Section 27 of the Evidence Act which provides:

“… When any fact is deposed to as discovered in consequence of information received from a person accused of any offence, in the custody of a police officer, so much of such information, whether it amounts to a confession or not, as relates distinctly to the fact thereby discovered, may be proved.”

Thus, to summarize, the FIR made by the accused becomes relevant under the following cases:-

(1) The FIR lodged by the accused may be relevant under section 8 of the Indian Evidence Act as his conduct.

(2) Section 8 provides that if the FIR lodged by the accused is non-confessional, it may be admissible in evidence against the accused as an admission under section 21 of Indian Evidence Act regarding certain facts. [Nisar Ali v. State of U.P. 1957 550 SC].

(3) If the FIR is confessional in nature, a certain portion of such FIR lodged by the accused can be used against him if it leads to the discovery of a fact within the meaning of section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act. [Aghnoo Naagesia v. State of Bihar 1966 CrLJ 100 SC]


Important Mains Questions Series for Judiciary, APO & University Exams

  1. Law of Evidence Mains Questions Series Part-I
  2. Law of Evidence Mains Questions Series Part-II
  3. Law of Evidence Mains Questions Series Part-III
  4. Law of Evidence Mains Questions Series Part-IV
  5. Law of Evidence Mains Questions Series Part-V
  6. Law of Evidence Mains Questions Series Part-VI
  7. Law of Evidence Mains Questions Series Part-VII
  8. Law of Evidence Mains Questions Series Part-VIII
  9. Law of Evidence Mains Questions Series Part-IX
  10. Law of Evidence Mains Questions Series Part-X
Updated On 2021-10-05T10:54:18+05:30
Admin LB

Admin LB

Next Story