Source: Supreme Court 

Why in News? 

A bench of Justice JB Pardiwala and Justice R Mahadevan held that in case the informant died a natural death the contents of FIR are not admissible in evidence. 

• The Supreme Court held this in the case of Lalita v. Vishwanath & Ors. (2025). 

What was the Background of Lalita v. Vishwanath & Ors. Case?   

• The deceased, Dev Kanya, was married to Respondent No.1, Vishwanath, for approximately 1.5 years before the incident. 
• The appellant, Dev Kanya’s mother, alleged that her daughter committed suicide due to incessant harassment by her husband, father-in-law, mother-in-law, and the husband's first wife. 
• The father of the deceased filed a First Information Report (FIR), leading to an investigation by the police. 
• Statements of various witnesses were recorded, and an inquest panchnama of the deceased’s body was conducted in the presence of panch witnesses. 
• The deceased's body was sent for post-mortem, and the report confirmed drowning as the cause of death. 
• The appellant maintained that her daughter had jumped into a well to end her life. 
• Clothes and other articles were collected and sent for forensic examination. 
• After completing the investigation, a charge-sheet was filed against all four accused persons. 
• The case was committed to the Court of Sessions under Section 209 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC). 
• The Trial Court framed charges, and all accused persons pleaded not guilty. 
• During the trial, the prosecution examined multiple witnesses and presented documentary evidence, including sale deeds, mutation entries, complaints, panchanamas, post-mortem reports, and forensic reports. 
• After evaluating the evidence, the Trial Court found all four accused guilty and sentenced them to ten years of rigorous imprisonment along with a fine of ₹1,000. 
• Dissatisfied with the judgment, the accused persons appealed to the High Court. 
• The High Court re-evaluated the evidence and acquitted all four accused persons. 
• The State did not challenge the High Court’s acquittal. 
• The appellant, Dev Kanya’s mother, has now filed an appeal before this Court. 

What were the Court’s Observations? 

• It is to be noted that in the present facts the FIR was filed by the father of the deceased. However, the father had passed away before the commencement of the trial. 
• The Court held that there is no cogent evidence to prove that there was abetment of commission of suicide. 
• It was observed by the Court that mere harassment and cruelty is not sufficient to infer abetment. 
• The Court held that even by taking help of Section 113 A of Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (IEA) it would be difficult in the present facts to say that there was abetment of suicide. 
• The Court thereafter discussed the law relating to admissibility of contents of FIR. 
• In the present case the Trial Court permitted the Investigating Officer to prove the contents of FIR and read into evidence as per Section 67 of IEA. 
• The Court held that it was incorrect on the part of the Trial Court and the High Court that in the absence of the first informant, the police officer can prove the contents of FIR as per Section 67 of IEA. 
• Thus, the appeal in the present facts was dismissed.

What is FIR under Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS)?

• The information given under Section 154 of the CrPC is commonly known as the First Information Report (FIR), though this term is not used in the Code.  
• This is provided for under Section 173 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS). 
• The new features introduced in BNSS with respect to FIR are as follows:  
  • Zero FIR: BNSS provides that the information relating to commission of cognizable offence is to be registered irrespective of the area where the offence is committed.  
  • FIR can be registered in electronic form: Section 173 (1) provides that the information can be given in electronic form as well. In this case the FIR shall be taken on record on being signed within three days by the person giving it.  
  • Provision for Preliminary Investigation: in case the cognizable offence is such which is made punishable for 3 years or more but less than 7 years, the officer in charge of the police station may with the prior permission of Deputy Superintendent of Police, considering the nature and gravity of offence:  
    • Proceed to conduct preliminary enquiry to ascertain whether there exists a prima facie case for proceeding in the matter within a period of fourteen days; or  
    • Proceed with investigation when there exists a prima facie case.

What is the Evidentiary Value of FIR as Laid Down in this Case?

• The purpose of FIR was laid down by the Court as follows: 
  • The basic purpose of filing a First Information Report is to set the criminal law into motion. 
  • A FIR is the initial step in a criminal case recorded by the police and contains the basic knowledge of the crime committed, place of commission, time of commission, who was the victim, etc. 
  • FIR’s can be registered by a victim, a witness or someone else with the knowledge of the crime. 
• The FIR by itself is not 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 IEA. 
• The relative importance of FIR is far more than any other statement recorded by the police officer during investigation. 
• It is the foremost important information that 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 IEA or to contradict his version by facts under Section 145 of IEA. 
• In case the FIR is filed by the accused himself. The FIR lodged 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 
• However, FIR can be used as substantive evidence when the informant dies.  
  • 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. 
• Where the death of the informant has no nexus with the complaint lodged i.e. the informant died natural death the contents of FIR would not be admissible in evidence. 
  • In such a case the contents of FIR cannot be proved by the Investigating Officer (IO). 
  • All that is permissible here is that the IO 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.