The Supreme Court has recently ruled that for an FIR (First Information Report) lodged by a deceased person to have evidentiary value, its contents must be corroborated and legally proved. The Court clarified that if the informant's death is unrelated to the case or complaint filed, then the FIR's contents cannot be admitted as evidence in the court of law. In such situations, the investigating officer cannot prove the FIR's contents.

The Court emphasized that an FIR alone is not a substantial piece of evidence. It can only be considered as evidence if it falls within the scope of Section 32 of the Indian Evidence Act, which discusses dying declarations. If the informant passes away due to reasons unrelated to the FIR, then its contents cannot be proved by the investigating officer.

"For an FIR lodged by a deceased person to be treated as substantial, its contents must be proved. It has to be corroborated and proved for there to be any value of the same in the case. If the informant dies of natural causes, the contents of the FIR would not be admissible in evidence and cannot be proved through the Investigating Officer."

The Court stated that the officer can only verify his and the informant's signature on the FIR and testify that he registered the FIR on a particular date at a specific police station. However, he cannot provide testimony regarding the contents of the FIR unless it qualifies as a dying declaration.

Read Also:- Supreme Court Stays Trial Against MP Congress MLA, Questions State on Witness Intimidation Allegations

Case Background and Supreme Court Verdict

The ruling came in an appeal filed before the Supreme Court, where a woman alleged that her daughter had died by suicide due to harassment by her husband, father-in-law, mother-in-law, and her husband's first wife. Initially, the Trial Court convicted all accused based on the charges of cruelty and abetment of suicide. However, the informant (the deceased woman's father) passed away before the trial started.

Despite this, the Trial Court permitted the investigating officer to prove the FIR's contents. The High Court later overturned this decision, ruling that the FIR could not be used as evidence unless it fell within the dying declaration exception.

When the case reached the Supreme Court, the Bench of Justices J.B. Pardiwala and R. Mahadevan ruled out the possibility of abetment of suicide, citing insufficient evidence. The Court further held that the FIR could not be treated as substantive evidence since it did not qualify as a dying declaration.

“The importance of an FIR is greater than any other statement recorded during a police investigation. It serves as the earliest report of an offence and can be used to corroborate or contradict the informant’s testimony. However, if the informant dies, the FIR shall only be treated as substantive evidence if the death has a direct link to the lodged FIR.”

Read Also:- SC Dismisses Case Against Parents of Man Over Broken Marriage Commitment: Misuse of Legal Process

The Court acknowledged that an FIR could be treated as a dying declaration if the informant succumbed to injuries sustained in connection with the case after lodging the complaint. There have been multiple cases where the judiciary has accepted FIRs as dying declarations under such circumstances.

In this case, the Supreme Court ruled that both the Trial Court and High Court were incorrect in allowing the investigating officer to prove the FIR contents. The Court cited earlier judgments, including Harkirat Singh v. State of Punjab (1997) 11 SCC 215, to support its conclusion.

After evaluating all aspects, the Supreme Court dismissed the appeal.

1. An FIR cannot be used as substantive evidence unless it falls under the dying declaration rule.

2. If the informant dies of natural causes, the contents of the FIR cannot be proved by the investigating officer.

Read Also:- Supreme Court Overturns Conviction, Citing Investigation Flaws & Weak Prosecution

3. The investigating officer can only testify about the registration of the FIR and the signatures but not about its contents.

4. An FIR can be considered a dying declaration if the informant's death is directly linked to the complaint.

5. The Trial Court and High Court erred in allowing the FIR contents to be proved through the investigating officer.

Case Details:

Case Name: Lalita v. Vishwanath & Others

Criminal Appeal No.: 1086 of 2017

Appellant: Mr. Amol V. Deshmukh (Advocate), Mr. Dilip Annasaheb Taur (AOR)

Respondent: Mr. Uday B. Dube (AOR)