The Supreme Court has ruled that if the informant of a First Information Report (FIR) dies a natural death, the contents of that FIR cannot be considered admissible evidence or be proven through an investigating officer. The judgment clarifies that unless the FIR qualifies as a dying declaration, it holds no standalone evidentiary value in court.
A bench comprising Justices J.B. Pardiwala and R. Mahadevan examined an appeal related to charges of cruelty and abetment of suicide. The case involved a woman who had taken her own life after allegedly facing harassment from her husband, in-laws, and her husband’s first wife. Her father had lodged the FIR, but he passed away before the trial began. Despite this, the trial court allowed the investigating officer to prove the contents of the FIR—a decision later overturned by the High Court.
The Supreme Court reinforced that an FIR is not a substantive piece of evidence and can only be used to support or challenge statements under the Evidence Act. It stressed that if an informant dies, the FIR can only be treated as evidence if their death is linked to the reported incident. The Court cited past rulings, including Harkirat Singh v. State of Punjab, to emphasize that an FIR could be considered a dying declaration if the informant succumbs to injuries related to the case.
Finding the lower courts’ handling of the case flawed, the Supreme Court ruled that allowing a police officer to verify the FIR’s contents in the absence of the informant was legally incorrect. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed.