Bench of Justices J.B. Pardiwala and R. Mahadevan
Introduction
The Supreme Court of India, in its judgment clarified that the contents of a FIR are inadmissible as evidence if the informant dies a natural death and cannot be proved through the investigating officer. The Court ruled that a FIR is not a substantive piece of evidence and can only be used to corroborate or contradict statements under the Evidence Act, 1872. It further stated that a FIR may be treated as a dying declaration only if the informant’s death is connected to the complaint lodged.
Facts of the Case
The appellant's daughter was married to the respondent, and she died by suicide allegedly due to harassment by her husband, in-laws, and the husband's first wife. The deceased’s father had lodged the FIR, alleging cruelty and abetment of suicide. However, the informant (father) passed away due to natural causes before the trial commenced. The Trial Court convicted the accused and allowed the investigating officer to prove the FIR contents since the informant had died. The High Court reversed the conviction, ruling that the FIR's contents could not be proven through the investigating officer. The matter was then appealed before the Supreme Court.
Issues
- Whether FIR lodged by a deceased informant can be used as substantive evidence in a case.
- Whether the contents of FIR can be proved through the investigating officer if the informant dies a natural death.
- Whether the FIR could be treated as a dying declaration under Section 32 of the Evidence Act,1872. (Now Sec 26 of BSA,2023).
You can also read the Blog by visiting [Blog]
For more information, visit [Aashayein Enquiry Section]
Contentions of the Petitioner
The investigating officer should be allowed to prove the contents of the FIR since the informant (father of the deceased) had passed away. The FIR should be treated as substantive evidence because it was the first version of the incident reported to the police. The Trial Court rightly convicted the accused based on the FIR and corroborating evidence.
Contentions of the Respondent
The High Court correctly overturned the conviction, as the contents of FIR are not admissible evidence unless they qualify as a dying declaration under Section 32 of the Evidence Act. The informant’s death was unrelated to the FIR, meaning the contents cannot be proved through the investigating officer. There was insufficient evidence to support the allegations of cruelty and abetment of suicide.
Court’s Analysis
The FIR is not a substantive piece of evidence; it only sets the investigation into motion. If the informant dies naturally, the FIR contents cannot be introduced as evidence through the investigating officer. The FIR can only be treated as a dying declaration if the informant dies due to injuries related to the FIR allegations. Previous judgments like Harkirat Singh v. State of Punjab [(1997) 11 SCC 215 : AIR 1997 SC 3231] were cited to reaffirm that an FIR cannot be proved through the police officer unless it qualifies as a dying declaration.
Conclusion
The Supreme Court held that the Trial Court and High Court were incorrect in allowing the investigating officer to prove the FIR contents. It dismissed the appeal, stating that there was insufficient evidence to prove cruelty or abetment of suicide.
