Source: Supreme Court 

Why in News? 

A bench of Justice JB Pardiwala and Justice R Mahadevan held that omission to name accused in FIR is relevant under Section 11 of Indian Evidence Act, 1872.    

• The Supreme Court held this in the case of State of Uttar Pradesh v. Raghuvir Singh (2025). 

What was the Background of State of Uttar Pradesh v. Raghuvir Singh Case?

• The family of the deceased had a hostile relationship with the respondent (accused). 
• In 1991, the respondent was convicted for the murder of Sitaram, the brother of the complainant, and sentenced to life imprisonment. 
• The deceased was employed as a driver in a private transport company and usually returned home late in the evening. 
• On 28th August 2004, the deceased did not return home, prompting his family to search for him. 
• At around 10:30 PM, the father, brother, and son of the deceased witnessed the respondent and two juvenile co-accused assaulting the deceased with knives. 
• The attack was so severe that the deceased's head was completely severed. 
• Despite the incident occurring late at night, the First Information Report (FIR) was lodged nearly 14 hours later, on the following afternoon at around 1:00 PM. 
• The police recovered the dead body from a field belonging to one Satpal (DW-1) and prepared an inquest Panchnama in the presence of two witnesses. 
• The body was sent for post-mortem, and weapons used in the crime were recovered based on the respondent's disclosure under Section 27 of the Evidence Act, 1872 (IEA). 
• The deceased’s clothes and those of the accused were collected and sent for forensic analysis. 
• A charge sheet was filed against the respondent and the two juvenile co-accused for murder under Sections 302 read with 34 of the IPC. 
• The trial court separated the trial for the juvenile co-accused and proceeded against the respondent. 
• The prosecution examined nine witnesses, while the defense presented four witnesses. 
• The accused denied all charges during his statement under Section 313 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (CrPC), claiming false implication. 
• The trial court found the respondent guilty and sentenced him to life imprisonment with a fine. 
• The respondent appealed against the conviction before the High Court. 
• The High Court overturned the trial court's decision and acquitted the respondent. 
• The State has now filed the present appeal before the Supreme Court challenging the acquittal. 

What were the Court’s Observations?

• The Court observed that the present case relies on three eyewitnesses, the discovery of the weapon, the alleged motive, and the defense witnesses’ oral evidence. 
• Further, with regard to FIR the following points were held by the Court: 
  • The FIR was lodged after a 14-hour delay. 
  • The FIR mentioned only the respondent-accused, omitting the names of the two juvenile co-accused, which raised doubts about the credibility of the eyewitness testimony. 
• While a delay in lodging an FIR does not automatically discredit a case, it must be assessed in conjunction with other inconsistencies in the prosecution’s evidence. 
• The Court held that the omission of the accused in the FIR is a relevant fact under Section 11 of the IEA. 
• It was observed that the trial judge must weigh the probabilities of the evidence and consider any reasonable doubt favoring the accused. 
• The Court observed that there was no error committed by the High Court in disbelieving the three eye witnesses. 
• With the eyewitness evidence discarded, the case relied on the discovery of the weapon. 
• The High Court also disbelieved the weapon discovery, as independent witnesses (Panchas) failed to verify the contents of the Panchnama. 
• Based on these factors, the High Court’s decision to acquit the accused was justified. 
• Thus, the Supreme Court acquitted the accused in this case.

What is Section 11 of IEA? 

• Section 11 of IEA provides for when facts not otherwise relevant become relevant. 
• It is a residuary provision that covers all the other facts that are otherwise irrelevant. 
• It provides the following facts are relevant: 
  • If they are inconsistent with any fact in issue or relevant fact. 
  • If by themselves or in connection with other facts they make the existence or non-existence of any fact in issue or relevant fact highly probable or improbable. 
• This provision is provided for under Section 9 of the Bharatiya Sakshaya Adhiniyam, 2023 (BSA).

What is FIR and its Evidentiary Value? 

• 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.