LawSchoolNotes

APRIL 23, 2017

Evidentiary value of First Information

Report (F.I.R.)

By Apurva Rathee, Advocate

Introduction:

There are three stages through which an offence passes:

Investigation,
Inquiry, and
Trial

Out of these three stages, investigation is a function performed by police

alone. According to Section 2(h) of the Code of Criminal Procedure,
1973,[1] “investigation” includes all the proceedings under the Code for
the collection of evidence conducted by a police officer or by any person
(other than a magistrate) who is authorized by a magistrate.

Police can start with the investigation procedure once it receives

information as to the commission of a cognizable offence. Information of
a cognizable offence can reach the police through three channels:

First Information Report (F.I.R.),

Credible information, and
Personal knowledge.
Out of these three channels, information by way of F.I.R. is the most
common channel. A first information report means the information, by
whomsoever given, to the officer in charge of a police station, in relation
to the commission of a cognizable offence and which is first in point of
time and on the strength of which the investigation into that offence is
commenced.[2]

The words ‘first information report’ have a legal import. Nowhere in

Cr.P.C. have these words been used. Section 154 of Cr.P.C. gives the
concept of F.I.R. F.I.R. is the earliest report made to the police officer with
a view to his taking action in the matter.[3]

Object of F.I.R.:

The principle object of the F.I.R. from the point of view of the informant is
to set the criminal law in motion and from the point of view of the
investigating authorities is to obtain information about the alleged
criminal activity so as to be able to take suitable steps to trace and bring
to book the guilty.[4]

The purpose of recording the F.I.R. is to put into writing the statement of
the informant before his memory fails or before he gets time and
opportunity to embellish it. But the F.I.R. is not a condition precedent to
the setting in motion of a criminal investigation.[5]

If information is received and recorded in accordance with Section 154,

such F.I.R. becomes the basis of the case set up by the informant, even
though it may not be admissible as substantive evidence, and it assumes
importance if promptly made.

At the same time, the F.I.R. cannot be said to be the last word of the
prosecution because it need not be made by an eye-witness nor is
required to give full details. It merely marks the beginning of the
investigation and its value must accordingly depend on the circumstances
of each case, including the nature of the crime, the position of the
informant and opportunity he had of witnessing the whole or part of the
offence. It need not necessarily be given by a person who has first-hand
knowledge of the incident; hence, it cannot be rejected as F.I.R. merely
because it is based on hearsay.

The F.I.R. cannot serve as a conclusive test for determining the question
whether there should be one or several trials of the several offences
disclosed in the F.I.R. The matter has to be determined on the basis of the
result of the investigation in the light of the provisions of the Code.

It is not the encyclopedia of the whole incident. Only essential or broad

spectrum need be set out in the F.I.R. and all the minute details are not
required to be stated therein. It may not be necessary to catalogue the
acts therein and non-mentioning of some facts or vague reference to
some others are not fatal.

F.I.R. is a vital material as it is first information about the incident and

has less chances of altering the version and improvement. It is not
substantive evidence and cannot contradict the testimony of the eye-
witnesses but may contradict its maker.[6]

Mandatory Conditions of F.I.R.:

In the case of State of Maharashtra v. Ahmed Shaikh Babajan &

Ors.,[7] the Hon’ble Supreme Court discussed in detail the contents of a
F.I.R. as per Section 154 Cr.P.C.:-

The first information report is a report relating to the commission of a

cognizable offence, given to the police and recorded by it under
Section 154 of the Cr.P.C.
Recording of F.I.R. is not a condition precedent to the setting in motion
of the criminal investigation yet from the view point of the
investigating authorities it conveys to them earliest information
regarding the circumstances in which the crime was committed, the
names of the culprits and the role played by them as well as the names
of the witnesses present at the scene of occurrence, so vital for
effective and meaningful investigation.[8]
The information about an occurrence can be given by any person
knowing about the commission of such an offence and not necessarily
by the eye-witnesses.
Lodging of F.I.R. keeps the District Magistrate and the Superintendent
of Police informed of the occurrence of a cognizable offence and when
it was recorded.
It is not the requirement of law that every minute detail of the
occurrence needs to be recorded in the F.I.R.[9]
F.I.R. is not intended to be an encyclopedia of the back-ground
scenario. Nevertheless, it must disclose the commission of an offence.
F.I.R. does not constitute substantive evidence though its importance
as conveying the earliest information regarding the occurrence cannot
be doubted. It can, however, only be used as a previous statement for
the purpose of either corroborating its maker under Section 157 of the
Indian Evidence Act or for contradicting him under Section 145 of that
Act.[10]

     An analysis of Section 154 brings out the following points:

1. The information is to be given to an officer in charge of the police

station having jurisdiction for investigating the case [Section 154(1)].
2. If the information is given orally to such officer, it shall be reduced to
 writing by the officer himself or under his direction [Section 154(1)].
3. The information, if given in writing, or if reduced to writing as
aforesaid, shall be signed by the informant [Section 154(1)].
4. The information as taken down in writing shall be read over to the
informant [Section 154(1)].
5. The substance of the information is then to be entered by the police
officer in a book kept by him in the prescribed form [Section 154(1)].
This book is called Station Diary or General Diary [Section 44 of the
Police Act, 1861].
6. The informant then shall forthwith be given a copy of the information
as recorded in the aforesaid manner [Section 154(2)].[11]

From the above discussions, it is submitted that the following are the
mandatory conditions or the standards of a F.I.R.:

F.I.R. is lodged for a cognizable offence

What Section 154 requires is that information must be in relation to “the

commission of a cognizable offence”. A “cognizable offence” has been
defined in Section 2(c) of Cr.P.C. as “Cognizable offence means an offence
for which, and “cognizable case” means a case in which, a police officer
may, in accordance with the First Schedule or under any other law for the
time being in force, arrest without warrant.”

It does not require that the information must give details of all elements
of the offence, or the weapon used or the names of the witnesses or even
of the accused, if the particulars given are sufficient for appreciation of
the evidence.[12]

In determining whether the omission of such particulars should discredit

the story given out in the F.I.R., the circumstances or the manner in which
the report was made should be taken into consideration, for instance,
whether it indicates a rustic simplicity or a clear and well-planned deceit;
whether the informant was a man of status; whether he had any motive
to falsely implicate the accused.

In order to constitute F.I.R., the informant’s statement must not be vague

or indefinite but must give sufficient materials to the police to start the
investigation on it.[13]

But for instance, in case under Prevention of Atrocities against SC and ST

Act, 1989 or the Civil Rights Protection Act, 1955, the caste of the
complainant or/and the accused is not given, the F.I.R. is liable to be
quashed.[14]

If the foregoing conditions are satisfied, it cannot be ignored on the

ground that it was not as full as it should have been. It is not necessary
that at the time of lodging the F.I.R., the informant must give an elaborate
account of what had happened.

In the case of State of U.P. v. Naresh and Ors.,[15] the Supreme Court
observed that, “It is settled legal proposition that F.I.R. is not an
encyclopedia of the entire case. It may not and need not contain all the
details. Naming of the accused therein may be important but not naming of
the accused in F.I.R. may not be a ground to doubt the contents thereof.”[16]

Thus, although ideally an F.I.R. should answer twenty-four W’s, e.g.

which offence has been committed, where was it committed, who
committed it, etc. On this depends the evidentiary value of the F.I.R. But
the most important question is which offence has been committed and if
it is a prima facie case of a cognizable offence and the informant mentions
that a cognizable offence has been committed, then it is a valid F.I.R.

First in point of time

The provisions as to information reported are enacted to obtain early

information of alleged criminal activity, to record the circumstances
before there is time for them to be forgotten or embellished and the
report can be put in evidence when the informant is examined if it is
desired to do so. However, the mere fact that first information has been
lodged early does not rule out embellishment or falsehood in every
case.[17]

When more than one F.I.R. has been lodged then the one recorded first in
point of time which persuaded the police to start the investigation is to be
treated as F.I.R.[18] So, even if different people come to the police station
to give information about the same offence, the one which was recorded
first would be taken as F.I.R. Other information would be recorded under
Section 161 Cr.P.C. for the purpose of investigation but would not get the
status of F.I.R.

Who can lodge F.I.R.

F.I.R. can come from any quarter. Even an anonymous letter sent
reporting a cognizable offence may be treated as F.I.R. It need not be
lodged by the eye-witness alone. It is also not necessary that the
informant had personal knowledge of the offence. F.I.R. lodged by the
accused to the police station containing confession cannot be admissible
in evidence except under Section 27 of the Evidence Act.[19]
 Oral or written

Information may be given orally or in writing. If it is given orally to the

officer in charge of the police station, it shall be reduced in writing. In
both the cases it has to signed by the person making the report. In case of
an oral report, the police officer has to read it to the informant.[20]

Oral information has been considered as good as written because it may

be so that the person is illiterate or in a state of shock. The signing of the
F.I.R., after the police officer reads it out to the informant in case it is oral,
is an acknowledgment that the information is true to the best of the
informant’s knowledge. In case, the F.I.R. lodged is false and the police
officer gets into investigation as a result of such an F.I.R., this may result
in serious invasion of personal liberty of people mentioned in such a
F.I.R. In such a situation the responsibility will be on the informant who
gave wrong information.

Duty of police to record F.I.R.

When a report of a cognizable case is made at a police station, it has to be

made to the officer in charge of the police station. The meaning of the
term ‘officer in charge of the police station’ is as given in Section 2(o).[21]
A report made to a police officer not incharge of police station is not F.I.R.
But Section 154 does not create any bar to the making of a report to a
senior officer.[22]

Refusal to record F.I.R. on the ground that the place of occurrence falls
outside the territorial jurisdiction of the police station is not correct. The
proper way is to record the F.I.R. and then forward to the police station
having jurisdiction over the case. Refusal to record F.I.R. on the ground
that the information received is not credible is not proper. Officer in
charge of police station has no option but to record F.I.R. on receipt of
information of the commission of a cognizable offence.[23] If he refuses
to record such information it amounts to dereliction of duty. If he fails to
perform his mandatory duty, the High Court by a writ of mandamus can
direct him to register the F.I.R. and start investigating the case.[24]

This object will be defeated if the police officer in charge of the police
station refuses to record the information. Therefore Section 154(3)
provides a remedy in such a situation. According to this provision, if any
person is aggrieved by a refusal on the part of a police officer in charge of
a police station to record the information, he may send by post the
substance of such information in writing to the Superintendent of Police
concerned. If the Superintendent is satisfied that the information
discloses the commission of a cognizable offence, he shall either
investigate the case himself or direct an investigation to be made by a
subordinate police officer in the manner provided by the Code. Section
154(3) further provides that such subordinate police officer investigating
the offence shall have all the powers of an officer in charge of police
station in relation to that offence.[25]

It has also been clarified by the Supreme Court that since the word
‘information’ in Section 154 is not qualified as ‘reasonable’ it is the duty of
the police to register the information under Section 154. In the celebrated
judgment of State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal,[26] it was decided that
when an information is lodged as to the commission of a cognizable
offence before the officer in charge of the police station, he has no other
alternative but to register the same in a prescribed form and initiate a
case. Even if such information of cognizable offence is lodged against a
high police official, it is also the duty of the officer in charge of the
concerned police station to reduce the information to writing, read it over
to the informant, get the signature of the informant thereon and enter the
substance thereof in the diary.[27]

Delay in Lodging F.I.R.:

The object of Section 154 is to obtain early information of an alleged

criminal activity, to record the circumstances and the facts before there is
time for them to be embellished or forgotten. The first information report
should be made promptly. The reason for insisting upon lodging of F.I.R.
without delay to obtain the earlier information of the circumstance of
commission of offence, the nature of the accused, the parts played by
them, the weapons used as also the names of the eye-witnesses. Delay in
first information report is an important circumstance and it must be
satisfactorily explained, and if the delay is not so explained, the case
becomes doubtful.[28]

In the case of Amar Singh v. Balwinder Singh,[29] the Hon’ble Supreme

Court held that, “There is no hard and fast rule that any delay in lodging
the FIR would automatically render the prosecution case doubtful. It
necessarily depends on facts and circumstances of each case.”

Law has not fixed any time for filling F.I.R., as such a delayed F.I.R. is not
illegal.[30] On an inordinate, unreasonable and unexplained delay in
lodging of the F.I.R., arises a presumption in law that the F.I.R. is based on
a false or fabricated story or afterthought. Although, if there is no
unreasonable delay, it does not give rise to any simultaneous
presumption that the F.I.R. is true. As unreasonable delay adversely
affects the evidentiary value of the F.I.R., any delay must be properly
explained.
When is delay not fatal:

1. Delay in cases of sexual assaults

Delay in lodging of F.I.R. in case of sexual assaults cannot be equated with

the case involving other offences. There are several matters which weigh
in the mind of the prosecutrix and her family members before coming to
the police station to lodge a complaint. In a tradition bound society,
particularly rural India, it would be quite unsafe to throw out the
prosecution case merely on the ground of delay in lodging the F.I.R.[31]

In State of Rajasthan v. Om Prakash,[32] a child was raped. It was held

by the court that it was not unnatural for the brother of the victim to wait
for the arrival of the elders of the house and to lodge a report after the
decision of the family members because reputation of the family and
career of the girl was involved.

In Mekala Raja Reddy v. State of A.P.,[33] the victim was forcibly taken
to a field on 30.08.1992 while she was returning home in the evening after
making bidi as a laborer. Her moth was gagged, therefore, she could not
cry for help. She was threatened to be killed if she would not do sexual
intercourse with the accused persons. She stood these and then she was
forcibly raped by the accused persons one after another. She was
threatened not to inform the incident to anybody. She did not reveal the
incident to anybody. The incident came to light due to loose talk by the
accused in the village. When the police came to know about the incident,
they came to the village and questioned her and took her to the police
station. There the statement of the victim was recorded at the police
station on 26.12.1992, i.e., after four months. It was also held the delay in
lodging F.I.R. was properly and satisfactorily explained.

2. Fatal injuries to the victim

When any victim gets seriously injured and needs immediate medical
care, then the first interest of the family members of such a person is to
save the life of the victim. In such a case, if there is delay in the lodging of
the F.I.R., it would not put any adverse presumption on the prosecution
case.

In the case of Bhajan Singh v. State of Haryana,[34] the deceased was

grievously injured. The father of the deceased person first shifted his son
to the hospital and only after that did he lodge a F.I.R. The delay stood
satisfactorily explained.

3. Cases of mental shock

There is also a possibility that a person may go into mental shock by

witnessing the gruesome nature of the crime. In such a situation also
there can be a delay in lodging of F.I.R.
In the case of Gurdev Raj v. State of Punjab,[35] there was a quarrel
between the appellant, his wife and mother-in-law. The appellant picked
up an iron rod lying in the room and administered blows on the head of
his mother-in-law. She died at about 6.30 p.m. The two other ladies
present in the house had raised hue and cry during the incident but no
one came to their rescue. The accused ran away. Both the ladies being
frightened left the dead body in the house, locked it and went to inform
the husband of the deceased at Amritsar from Taran Taran. He was not at
home and came back quite late in the night. In the morning, the wife of
the appellant and her father went to the police station at Taran Taran.
There was not any unexplained delay on the part of the prosecution in
lodging F.I.R.

In the case of Raja Gounder v. State of Tamil Nadu,[36] the accused

attacked and brutally killed his brother in front of the deceased’s wife.
She was the only eye-witness. Wife was in great distress and had first sent
information to her parents in their village some distance away and had
thereafter left for police station to lodge F.I.R. The delay of 13 hours was
considered to be perfectly compatible with behavior of a widow
witnessing such an incident.

Evidentiary Value of F.I.R.

F.I.R. is a vital and important piece of evidence as it contains the first

version of the incident. However, it cannot be treated as substantive piece
of evidence as it is neither recorded on oath nor tested by cross
examination. But when the informant is called as witness in the Court his
former statement (F.I.R.) can be used both for corroborating and
contradicting his testimony as per Section 157, Section 161 and Section
145 of the Indian Evidence Act. But it cannot be used as evidence against
the informant as it is hit by Section 25 of the Evidence Act.

F.I.R. could be used for corroborating the informant as per Section 157
and Section 161 of the Evidence Act but it could not be used for
corroborating other prosecution witnesses or prosecution case in
general.
F.I.R. could be used for contradicting the informant as per Section 145
of the Evidence Act but for that firstly, the attention of the informant
must be drawn to the relevant portions where the contradiction
occurs. Secondly, explanation should be invited and only then defence
can rely upon the contradiction.
If F.I.R. is made by accused himself then it could be used as per the
normal rules of evidence unless it is in the nature of a confession, as
then it will be hit by Section 25 of the Evidence Act. The position of
such case has been discussed in detail in Aghnoo Nagesia versus
State of Bihar AIR 1966 SC 119:-
1. Such an F.I.R. is not inadmissible in evidence
2. If the information is non-confessional then it could be admissible
under Section 21
3. If it is confessional in nature then it will become inadmissible except
the portion which will come under Section 27 of the Evidence Act.
4. In this case, Supreme Court for the first time clarified that F.I.R. will be
admissible in evidence as a whole not in parts but with a rider that in
case the non-confessional part has no connection with the
confessional part then the former will be relevant under Section 18
and Section 21.

F.I.R. by an accused cannot be treated as evidence against the co-accused.

F.I.R. can be used by the informant to refresh his memory under

Section 159 of the Evidence Act.
F.I.R. can be used for impeaching the credit of the informant under
Section 155 of the Evidence Act.
It can also be used for proving the conduct of the informant as per
Section 8 of the Evidence Act.
F.I.R. can be used to identify the accused, witnesses, place and time of
occurrence as per Section 9 of Evidence Act.
In certain circumstances, it could also be used as per Section 11 of the
Evidence Act.

F.I.R. cannot be used as a primary evidence of the truth of its contents as

it cannot be substituted for evidence given on oath. Therefore, F.I.R. itself
cannot lead to the conviction of the accused. But in certain circumstances
F.I.R. becomes substantive piece of evidence:

1. Under Section 32 of the Evidence Act

2. Under Section 6 of the Evidence Act as res-gestae
3. Under Section 160 of the Evidence Act.

On the basis of the above, it can be concluded that normally F.I.R. is not a
substantive piece of evidence but is a public document as per Section 74
of the Evidence Act and its certified copy could be given as per Section 79
of the Evidence Act. However, it becomes a substantive piece of evidence
under certain circumstances but S.H.O. cannot give copy of F.I.R. to the
accused unless the police report is ready or else he would be liable under
Section 27 of the Police Act, 1861.

Photo Credits: https://indianlawyersforum.com
/pub/news/images
/image_2016-06-18-11-27-16_5765301491e92.jpg

[1] Hereinafter referred to as Cr.P.C.

[2] State of Bombay v. Rusy Mistry, AIR 1960 SC 391

[3] Lal, Batuk; The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, 2nd Ed., Central
Law Agency, Allahabad, 2010, p. 226

[4] Ratanlal & Dhirajlal; The Code of Criminal Procedure, 19th Ed.,
LexisNexis Butterworths Wadhwa Nagpur Ltd., Gurgaon, 2010, p.474

[5] Basu, D.D.; Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, Vol. 2, 4th Ed., LexisNexis
Butterworths Wadhwa Ltd., Nagpur, 2010, p. 803

[6] Ibid., p.804

[7] 2009 (1) RCR (Criminal) 224

[8] Emperor v. Khwaja Nazir Ahmad, AIR (32) 1945 PC 18

[9] State of Andhra Pradesh v. Golconda Linga Swamy & Anr., 2004
(3) RCR (Criminal) 831

[10] Sheikh Hasib alias Tabarak v. The State of Bihar, (1972) 4 SCC 773

[11] Kelkar, R.V., Criminal Procedure, 5th Reprinted Ed., Eastern Book
Co., Lucknow, 2011, pp.124-125

[12] Basu, supra note 5, p. 807

[13] Ibid., p.808

[14] Manohar M. Kulkarni v. State of Maharashtra, 2005 Cr.L.J. 2650

[15] AIR 2011 RCR (Criminal) 364

[16] Ibid., para 26

[17] Ratanlal & Dhirajlal, supra note 4, p.474

[18] Basu, supra note 5, p. 808

[19] Aghnoo v. State of Bihar, AIR 1966 SC 119

[20] Lal, Batuk, supra note 3, p.227

[21] Sec. 2(o) Cr.P.C., “Officer in charge of a police station includes, when
the officer in charge of the police station is absent from the station-house
or unable from illness or other cause to perform his duties, the police
officer present at the station-house who is next in rank to such officer and
is above the rank of constable or, when, the State Government so directs,
any other police officer so present.”

[22] Lal, Batuk, supra note 3, p.227

[23] Ibid., pp. 228-29

[24] Basu, supra note 5, p. 817

[25] Kelkar, supra note 11, p. 125

[26] 1992 Cri.L.J. 527 (SC)

[27] A. Nallasivam v. State, 1995 Cri.L.J. 2754

[28] Lal, Batuk, supra note 3, p.232

[29] AIR 2003 SC 1164

[30] Ratanlal & Dhirajlal, supra note 4, p.477

[31] Lal, Batuk, supra note 3, p.233

[32] AIR 2002 SC 2235

[33] 2002 Cr.L.J. 3407 (AP)

[34] 2011(3) RCR (Criminal) 641

[35] 2008 Cr. L. J. 382 (SC)

[36] 2011(1) RCR (Criminal) 614

Advertisements

REPORT THIS AD
Advertisements
 REPORT THIS AD
 CRIMINAL LAW  EVIDENCE LAW
 NOTES FOR PROJECTS  TOPIC WISE NOTES
 A DELAYED F.I.R. IS NOT ILLEGAL
 A. NALLASIVAM V. STATE
 AGHNOO NAGESIA VERSUS STATE OF BIHAR
 AMAR SINGH V. BALWINDER SINGH
 ANALYSIS OF SECTION 154
 BEGINNING OF THE INVESTIGATION
 BHAJAN SINGH V. STATE OF HARYANA
 CASES OF MENTAL SHOCK
 COLLECTION OF EVIDENCE
 COMMISSION OF A COGNIZABLE OFFENCE
 CONTENTS OF A F.I.R. AS PER SECTION 154 CR.P.C.
 CREDIBLE INFORMATION  DELAY IN LODGING F.I.R.
 DELAY IN LODGING OF F.I.R. IN CASE OF SEXUAL
ASSAULTS
 DUTY OF POLICE TO RECORD F.I.R.
 EMPEROR V. KHWAJA NAZIR AHMAD  EVIDENCE
 EVIDENTIARY VALUE  F.I.R. BY AN ACCUSED
 F.I.R. CAN BE USED BY THE INFORMANT TO REFRESH HIS
MEMORY UNDER SECTION 159 OF THE EVIDENCE ACT
 F.I.R. CAN BE USED FOR IMPEACHING THE CREDIT OF THE
INFORMANT UNDER SECTION 155 OF THE EVIDENCE ACT
 F.I.R. CANNOT BE USED AS A PRIMARY EVIDENCE OF THE
TRUTH OF ITS CONTENTS AS IT CANNOT BE SUBSTITUTED FOR
EVIDENCE GIVEN ON OATH
 F.I.R. COULD BE USED FOR CONTRADICTING THE
INFORMANT AS PER SECTION 145 OF THE EVIDENCE ACT
  F.I.R. COULD BE USED FOR CORROBORATING THE
INFORMANT
 F.I.R. DOES NOT CONSTITUTE SUBSTANTIVE EVIDENCE
 F.I.R. IS LODGED FOR A COGNIZABLE OFFENCE
 F.I.R. IS NOT INTENDED TO BE AN ENCYCLOPEDIA
 FIRST IN POINT OF TIME
 FIRST INFORMATION REPORT
 GURDEV RAJ V. STATE OF PUNJAB  HEARSAY
 INFORMATION
 INFORMATION MAY BE GIVEN ORALLY OR IN WRITING
 INQUIRY  INVESTIGATION  MAGISTRATE
 MANDATORY CONDITIONS OF F.I.R.
 MANOHAR M. KULKARNI V. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA
 MEKALA RAJA REDDY V. STATE OF A.P.
 OBJECT OF THE F.I.R.
 OBTAIN INFORMATION ABOUT THE ALLEGED CRIMINAL
ACTIVITY
 OFFICER IN CHARGE OF THE POLICE STATION
 PERSONAL KNOWLEDGE  POLICE OFFICER
 PUBLIC DOCUMENT
 PURPOSE OF RECORDING THE F.I.R. IS TO PUT INTO
WRITING THE STATEMENT OF THE INFORMANT BEFORE HIS
MEMORY FAILS OR BEFORE HE GETS TIME AND OPPORTUNITY
TO EMBELLISH IT
 RAJA GOUNDER V. STATE OF TAMIL NADU
 RECORDING OF F.I.R. IS NOT A CONDITION PRECEDENT TO
THE SETTING IN MOTION OF THE CRIMINAL INVESTIGATION
 REPORT  RES-GESTAE
 SECTION 11 OF THE EVIDENCE ACT  SECTION 145
 SECTION 154  SECTION 155 OF THE EVIDENCE ACT
 SECTION 157  SECTION 159 OF THE EVIDENCE ACT
 SECTION 160 OF THE EVIDENCE ACT
 SECTION 161 CR.P.C.  SECTION 2(C) OF CR.P.C.
 SECTION 2(H)  SECTION 27 OF THE EVIDENCE ACT
 SECTION 32 OF THE EVIDENCE ACT
 SECTION 6 OF THE EVIDENCE ACT
 SECTION 79 OF THE EVIDENCE ACT
 SECTION 8 OF THE EVIDENCE ACT
 SECTION 9 OF EVIDENCE ACT
  SET THE CRIMINAL LAW IN MOTION
 SHEIKH HASIB ALIAS TABARAK V. THE STATE OF BIHAR
 STATE OF BOMBAY V. RUSY MISTRY
 STATE OF HARYANA V. BHAJAN LAL
 STATE OF RAJASTHAN V. OM PRAKASH
 STATE OF U.P. V. NARESH AND ORS.  STATION DIARY
 SUBSTANTIVE EVIDENCE
 THE CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE
 THE FIRST INFORMATION REPORT SHOULD BE MADE
PROMPTLY
 THE INDIAN EVIDENCE ACT  TRIAL
 WHICH OFFENCE HAS BEEN COMMITTED

Published by Harpreet Kaur & Apurva Rathee

View all posts by Harpreet Kaur & Apurva Rathee

2 comments

1. Khushali Oza says:

NOVEMBER 25, 2018 AT 9:46 AM
very systematic and detailed description

REPLY
Harpreet Kaur & Apurva Rathee says:
DECEMBER 31, 2018 AT 9:51 AM
Thank you

REPLY

Create a free website or blog at WordPress.com.