First information report

FIR being the foundational document sets the criminal law in motion.

When there is delay in reporting the incident to the police, then prosecution is under obligation to explain such delay and failure to do that would badly reflect upon the credibility of prosecution version.

It is neither safe to believe such story of prosecution which does not meet such requirements nor prosecution's case based on improbable story can sustain conviction of accused.

Mere delay in the lodgment of the FIR shall never be sufficient to believe or disbelieve the contents of the FIR, but the question of guilt or innocence shall always need the required standard of evidence

Promptness or delay would, however, have its relevance as a circumstance which otherwise would not prejudice the liabilities of either side and that of the Court to examine this aspect by holding the scale of justice tight.

First Information Report is always considered as foundational element and cornerstone of the case of prosecution for the reason that it contains first hand detail of the occurrence presumably free from any adulteration/manipulation, addition or omission and if it is not so and there is no explanation in that regard, then superstructure raised on the basis of that FIR i.e. case of prosecution is bound to fall like house of cards.

When there is delay in reporting the incident to the police, then prosecution is under obligation to explain such delay and failure to do that will badly reflect upon the credibility of prosecution version.

First Information Report (crime report) is the corner stone and foundational element of the case of prosecution and if same has not been recorded promptly after the occurrence, then superstructure raised on the basis of said FIR in the form of case of prosecution is bound to fall.

If First Information Report has not been recorded promptly after the occurrence, then superstructure raised on the basis of said FIR in the form of case of prosecution is bound to fall

When there is delay in reporting the incident to the police, then prosecution is under obligation to explain such delay and failure to do that would badly reflect upon the credibility of prosecution version and same is fatal for the prosecution case.

Mere delay in registration of FIR would not be fatal to the prosecution case, but prosecution is required to furnish plausible explanation in that regard; missing such factor creates dent in the prosecution story.

Principal objective of F.I.R. is to set the law in motion for initiation of investigation by police officer for the purpose of collecting evidence relating to crime.

When there is delay in reporting the incident to the police, then prosecution is under obligation to explain such delay and failure to do that would badly reflect upon the credibility of prosecution version.

Principal objective of F.I.R. is to set the law in motion for initiation of investigation by police officer for the purpose of collecting evidence relating to crime.

Purpose of FIR is to record firsthand information as it is received and then set the law into motion to verify its correctness or otherwise

First Information Report is neither considered a substantial document, nor is required to have all the minute detail of the incident.

First Information Report is not encyclopedia of all details, it is meant to set the law in motion with regard to a cognizable offence.

Principal objective of F.I.R. is to set the law in motion for initiation of investigation by police officer for the purpose of collecting evidence relating to crime.

First Information Report lays foundation of the criminal case and when it has not been promptly recorded rather with delay and no reasonable explanation regarding its delayed recording has come on the record, then it is fatal for the case of prosecution.

Factors to be considered by the Courts are first that whether such delay stands reasonably explained and secondly, that the prosecution has not derived any undue advantage through the delay involved.

Delay in lodging FIR is considered to create doubt about the case when it is used for deliberation, manipulation and settling some score or widen the net to implicate innocent people.

Not necessary that only injured or their relative could register the FIR.

First Information Report was not meant to decide the guilt or innocence but to activate the law enforcing agencies to immediately move for collection/preservation of evidence.

First Information Report was treated to be a corner stone of the prosecution case to establish guilt against the culprit

First Information Report had a significant role to play

Delay in lodging FIR gave rise to doubt, the benefit of which would be extended to the accused.

First Information Report was always treated as a cornerstone of the prosecution case to establish guilt against those involved in a crime

First Information Report has a significant role to play.

First Information Report must be lodged with promptitude in order to give it reliability and credibility unless the delay is explained.

If evidence recorded in court appeared to be trustworthy and convincing, then delay in lodging of the FIR could be ignored, keeping in view the peculiar circumstances of each case.

Purpose of FIR is to obtain spontaneous information of occurrence in order to exclude the possibility of the fabrication of story or consultation or deliberation or to enable the complainant to get time to devise or contrive anything to his advantage and to the disadvantage of others

Purpose of FIR is also to safeguard the accused of such like happenings/occurrences in the FIR.

Main object of prompt registration of the FIR is to rule out the possibility of deliberation and consultation and inquiry

Element of delay in lodging the crime report is treated with caution because there is a tendency to involve innocent people during the interval.

Delay would only be material when there is doubt regarding identity of accused.

High Court could not invoke S. 561-A, Cr.P.C., to issue directions to the Investigators.

First Information Report in a criminal case is an extremely imperative piece of evidence for the purpose of corroborating the oral evidence adduced at the trial

Object of insisting upon prompt lodging of the FIR to the police in respect of commission of an offence is to obtain early information regarding the circumstances in which the crime was committed, the names of actual culprits and the part played by them as well as the names of eye-witnesses present at the crime scene

Delay in lodging the FIR quite often results in adornment with mala fide lodging intention

On account of delay, the FIR not only deprived of the advantage of spontaneity, danger creeps in of the introduction of coloured version, exaggerated account or concocted story as a result of deliberation and consultation, adversely affecting the case of the prosecution.

First Information Report was not a substantive piece of evidence and non-examination of its scribe could not be considered fatal to the prosecution case.

Delay in lodgement of FIR alone was not considered a sufficient ground for grant of bail in a case involving capital punishment.

FIR was lodged just to move the police machinery for investigation of the alleged occurrence.

Main object of the FIR is to bring the law into motion.

If evidence inspired confidence, the delay in registration of case became a secondary factor and did not materially affect the veracity of prosecution.

Purpose of FIR is to set criminal law in motion and to obtain first hand spontaneous information of occurrence in order to exclude possibility of fabrication of story or consultation or deliberation to devise or contrive anything to the advantage

First Information Report is also considered as a corner stone of the prosecution case unless it is shown that on account of some mala fide intention a wrong version of the complainant was recorded by the investigating agency with a view to allow the real culprits to go escort free.

Names of accused persons were not disclosed in the FIR, which was lodged promptly, but were disclosed by the complainant by making application on the 18th day of the incident

Said application could hardly be treated to be a part of FIR

Application had not specified the role which was allegedly played by the accused persons in the commission of the incident

Involvement of accused persons in commission of incident, on the basis of evidence of the complainant by making improvement to his version in his FIR, could safely be said to be doubtful one

Prosecution was not able to prove its case against the accused persons beyond shadow of doubt and the accused persons were entitled to benefit

Conviction and sentence awarded to the accused persons was set aside

Appeals were allowed, in circumstances.

Initial report made/lodged by the accused before the police as complainant in the case would be admissible against him as his admission.

Mere delay in lodging FIR is not fatal, however, where circumstances give rise to deliberation and consultation the delay cannot be taken lightly.

Law enforcing agencies had no authority to delay the registration of FIR once information regarding the commission of cognizable offence had been given.

Basic purpose of FIR was not meant to decide guilt or innocence but to activate the law enforcing agencies to immediately move for collection/preservation of evidence.

No legal sanctity was attached to the FIR lodged after inordinate delay merely on disclosure of some unknown source or information.

Investigation by police in cognizable offence without registering case was against the canon of law.

Said provisions postulated that every information relating to the commission of cognizable offence, if furnished orally or written to the SHO, would be reduced into writing by him

Purpose of registration of case was to set the law into motion; to obtain first hand spontaneous information of the occurrence, in order to exclude possibility of fabrication of story or consultation that deliberation or that complainant had time to device or contrive anything to his advantage and to the disadvantage of others and to safeguard the accused of such like happenings/ occurrence in FIR.

Station House Officer of police station, on receiving information relating to the commission of a cognizable offence, was under statutory obligation to enter the same in the prescribed register.

Undue, unreasonable and unexplained delay in filing FIR would lead to suspicion and reflect on the truth of the prosecution case

Information of crime was required to be supplied at the earliest in order to avoid criticism of the report as being manipulated and a result of deliberation and consultation.

Police Officer or incharge of Police Station was under legal obligation to reduce into writing any information given to him in respect of a cognizable offence.

FIR itself was not a substantial piece of evidence unless its contents were affirmed on oath and subjected to the test of cross-examination

FIR was a previous statement which could be used for the purpose of contradicting and corroborating its maker and unless it was not proved in accordance with law, it would be no evidence and therefore, could not be taken as a proof of anything stated therein

When the FIR was based on a statement made by the accused before the police, which tended to incriminate him with reference to the offence he was charged with, in that event, it was inadmissible in evidence

Where the maker of FIR neither appeared in support of FIR nor stood the test of cross-examination, such report was liable to be ruled out of consideration.

Promptness or delay of lodging FIR, would however, have relevance as a circumstance, which otherwise would not prejudice the liabilities of either sides and that of court to examine that aspect by holding the scale of justice tight.

Delay in lodging FIR could not be presumed to be fatal for the prosecution as each case had its own merits and circumstances

Mere delay in lodging FIR was not sufficient to claim of releasing the accused from the charge.

Inordinate delay without disclosing any sufficient reasons or plausible cause cast doubt about the veracity of prosecution case.