Write short notes on FIR is not a substantive piece of evidence

Question: Write short notes on FIR is not a substantive piece of evidence.

Find the answer to the mains question only on Legal Bites. [Write short notes on FIR is not a substantive piece of evidence.]

Answer

It is a well-settled position of law through various legal precedents that an FIR is not a substantive piece of evidence. It was pointed out by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Nisar Ali v. State of Uttar Pradesh 1957 SCC 128 that an FIR is not a substantive piece of evidence. The relevant excerpt from the judgement is herein provided below:-

"A First Information Report is not a substantive piece of evidence and can only be used to corroborate the statement of the maker under Section 157 of the Evidence Act or to contradict it under Section 145 of the Act. It cannot be used as evidence against the maker at the trial if he himself becomes an accused, nor to corroborate or contradict other witnesses."

In another case of Pandurang Chandrakant Mhatre v. State of Maharashtra, 2010 AIR SCW 236, it was established that a First Information Report (FIR) is not considered a substantive piece of evidence. Its primary purpose is to serve as the earliest account of a cognizable offence, obtained before circumstances can be forgotten or distorted. The relevant excerpt from the judgment is provided herein below:-

“It is fairly well settled that First Information Report is not a substantive piece of evidence and it can be used only to discredit the testimony of the maker thereof and it cannot be utilized for contradicting or discrediting the testimony of other witnesses. In other words, the First Information Report cannot be used with regard to the testimony of other witnesses who depose in respect of incident…”

In Dharma Rama Bhagare v. State of Maharashtra, (1973) 1 SCC 537, the Apex Court held that FIR is never treated as a substantive piece of evidence; it can only be used for corroborating or contradicting its maker when he appears in Court as a witness.

In the judgment of Baldev Singh v. State of Punjab, (1990) 4 SCC 692, it was held that as far as the evidentiary value of the FIR is concerned it can only be used for corroboration of its maker, but the FIR cannot be used as substantial evidence or corroborating a statement of third party.