RESEARCH QUESTIONS:

1) Is omission of accused name fatal to prosecution case?

2) Is omission of dying declaration in FIR, a relevant fact under section 11 of Indian Evidence
Act to judge the veracity of the prosecution case?
INTRODUCTION:
F.I.R. is not supposed to be an encyclopedia of entire case.1 There are only few essentials which
are needed to be mentioned in FIR. Some unimportant things left to mention, do not fail or frustrate
the prosecution case. Important and unimportant things varies from case to case. FIR in the crime
investigation is not the beginning and ending of the case. It only sets the machinery into motion.
As a general principle, it can be stated that error, illegality, or defect in investigation cannot have
any impact unless miscarriage of justice is brought about or serious prejudice has been caused to
the accused, stated in Union of India vs Prakash P. Hinduja2. In Gurnam Kaur vs Bakshish Singh3,
it was decided omission to mention an incidental fact cannot have the effect of nullifying an
otherwise prompt and impeccable report.

In George v. State of Kerala, it was held that FIR is not substantive piece of evidence (unless of
course it is admitted under section 32(1) of Evidence Act) and can be used to corroborate or
contradict the maker thereof. I In Baldev Singh v. State of Punjab,87 it was held that “The FIR is
not a substantive piece of evidence; it is relevant in judging the veracity of prosecution case and
the value to be attached to it depends on the facts of each case. Only the essential or broad picture
need be stated in the FIR and all minute details need not be mentioned therein. It is not a verbatim
summary of the prosecution case.

If prosecution case has been established by the evidence adduced, any failure or omission on part
of the I.O. cannot render the case of the prosecution doubtful, stated in many cases; Amar Singh
vs Balwinder Singh4, Sambu Das vs State of Assam5. A revised or amended chargesheet on the
basis of the same facts and same material to set right certain mistakes or omissions in the first
report can be filed even if there is no fresh investigation. Omissions are to be weighed and judged
at the backdrop of facts and circumstances, keeping in view natural human contact and memories
of the person, who have taken oath, decided in Kunj vs State6, State vs Ram Bahadur7, Mambhai
vs State8.
In Subash Kumar vs State of Uttarakhand9 the honorable Supreme Court decided that FIR as is
well known is not to be treated to be an encyclopedia. Although the effect of a statement made in

1
Rotash vs State of Rajasthan , 2007(1)RCR (Criminal) 871(SC)
2
Union of India vs Prakash P. Hinduja , AIR 2003 SC 2612
3
Gurnam Kaur vs Bakshish Singh , AIR 1981 SC 631
4
Amar Singh vs Balwinder Singh , AIR 2003 SC 1164
5
Sambu Das vs State of Assam , AIR 2010 SC 3300
6
Kunj vs State , 2004 9 SCC 193
7
State vs Ram Bahadur , 2004 9 SCC 310
8
Mambhai vs State , 2004 10 SCC 173
9
Subash Kumar V. State of Uttarakhand , AIR 2009 SUPREME COURT 2490 para 11.
the FIR at the earliest point of time should be given primacy, it would not probably be proper to
accept that all particulars in regard to I commission of offence in detail must be furnished. The
prosecution has brought on record that four persons assaulted the injured. P.W. 2 sustained serious
injuries. He felt unconscious but must have regained consciousness for some time. After he was
brought to the hospital then he could get the FIR lodged. If the deposition of P.W. 4 is to be
believed, the prosecution must be held to have proved that he became unconscious again as a result
whereof his statement could not be recorded on that date.

In Animireddy Venkata Ramanan & Ors. V. Public Prosecutor, H.C. of A.P„S 10the Apex Court
held that A First Information Report was recorded at about 3 O’clock in the night. In the
aforementioned situation, it cannot be said that the information received by the investigating
officer on the telephone was of such a nature and contained such details which would amount to a
First Information Report so as to attract the provisions of Section 162 of the Code.

In the First Information Report all the accused persons were named and overt acts on their part
were also stated at some length. Each and every detail of the incident was not necessary to be
stated. A First Information Report is not meant to be encyclopedic. While considering the effect
of some omissions in the First Information Report on the part of the informant, a court cannot fail
to take into consideration the probable physical and mental condition of the first informant. One
of the important factors which may weigh with the court is as to whether there was a possibility of
false implication of the appellants. Only with a view to test the veracity of the correctness of the
contents of the •eport, the court applies certain well-known principles of caution.

In Manoj@ Bhau v. State of Maharashtra,10 it was held that FIR is too sketchy and FIR need not
be an encyclopedia of the evidence and what is required to be stated is the basic prosecution case.
In the State of U.P. v. Nahar Singh and others,11 it was held that: “The purpose of recording FIR
under s. 154 of the Criminal Procedure Code is to set the investigating agency in motion for
prosecuting the persons responsible for the cognizable offence mentioned in the FIR. Though the
FIR should not be too sketchy or vague, yet non- mentioning of the details and meticulous
particulars is no ground to reject the case of the prosecution. Therefore, omission to assign weapon
or role to accused in FIR is not fatal to the case of prosecution.”

In S. Sudershan Reddy v. State of Andhra Pradesh12 honorable Supreme Court held that FIR is
not an encyclopedia of the facts concerning the crime. Merely because of Minute details of
occurrence were not mentioned in the FIR the same cannot make the prosecution case doubtful. In
this case source of light was not mentioned.A first information report is not substantive evidence,
but can be used only for limited purposes.13 In Kirender Sarkar & Ors. V. State of Assam14 the
honorable Supreme Court decided that the law is fairly well settled that FIR is not supposed to be
n encyclopedia of the entire events and cannot contain the minutest details of the vents. When
essentially material facts are disclosed in the FIR that is sufficient. FIR is tot substantive evidence

10
AIR 2008 SUPREME COURT 1603
and cannot be used for contradicting testimony of the eye witnesses except that may be used for
the purpose of contradicting maker of the report.

No doubt the F.I.R. being an early record and the first version of the alleged criminal activity
conveyed to the police officer with the object of putting the police in motion in order to investigate
is an important and valuable document. The statute does not provide that it must give full and
precise details. It is, therefore, not intended to be treated as the last word of the prosecution in the
matter. It merely marks the beginning of the investigation, into the reported offence and its value
must accordingly depend on the i circumstances of each case including the nature of crime, the
position of the informant and the opportunity he had of witnessing the whole or part of the
commission of the alleged offence.15 F.I.R. is not expected to contain all the details. 16F.I.R.
should not be treated as the last word of the prosecution in the matter. The Magistrates and Judges
while considering omissions in the F.I.R. should not derive inference from like mathematical
formulas, but should try to appraise them and find out their true effect in the light of all the
circumstances of the case and material on record.17Mere non-mention of names of all the accused
persons and details of injuries said to have been suffered by some of the accused in the FIR does
not render the FIR weak orunreliable.18 It is not possible to accept that because the report was not
full as it would have been it should be ignored altogether.19 It is not necessary that9 1minutest
details should find place in it. Sufficient if broad picture is revealed in F.I.R. is an important and
valuable piece of evidence. It sets in motion the machinery of law for investigation of the case. It
is not expected to contain minute details of occurrence; certain omissions are bound to be
especially when it is lodged by the widow of a villager. Lodging of FIR after about five hours of
the occurrence, when the police station is at a distance of seven miles from the place of occurrence
then it was held that FIR was lodged without any inordinate delay.22When names of accused, the
weapons, place of occurrence have been mentioned in FIR, then non-mentioning of details of some
overt acts does not make any difference, in such a case conviction of accused was held proper 23
omissions which tend to show that picture as originally given was changed during trial to project
a different version are to be considered while testing the credibility of evidence of maker of the
report.24No doubt, an F.I.R. is a previous statement which can, strictly speaking, be only used as
to corroborate or contradict the maker of it.Minor Omissions and variations in F.I.R. would not
affect the prosecution case, if it is substantially the same as was mentioned in the F.I.R.

Despite all these things only a cryptic information was. conveyed at the police station that the
accused had injured his son and accused had lodged him in the district hospital. Neither the motive
has: been mentioned nor the weapon, the names of the accused, witnesses, date, time and place of
occurrence etc. have not been mentioned. Therefore, the FIR does not contain virtually any
important information which had been gathered by the complainant before he reached at the police
station. Therefore it appears that everything has been developed as and when legal necessity was
felt. But suffice it to say that the origin of the FIR as alleged by the prosecution, is not free from
doubt. So the very building of the prosecution case is likely to crumble down on the ground of this
vital defect in the prosecution story.
In Harjit Singh v. State of Punjab,39 it was held that in this dowry death case FIR did not contain
details of demand of dowry, beating and harassment but no evidence that deceased had suicidal
tendency. FIR is not an encyclopedia that it should contain all the facts in detail. Substratum of the
prosecution case was mentioned in the FIR. A young woman would not end her life if she was
being treated with love and affection in matrimonial home.

Non-mentioning of part played by each accused in FIR would not be fatal to prosecution when
such FIR was lodged by an eye witness.40

In a case of robbery in F.I.R. the complainant had not given out any physical features of the accused
who had committed the offence. The robbery was committed in broad day light. But the
complainant had only mentioned about the colour of the clothes being worn by the accused andhad
not at all mentioned as to the height of the accused, their built and their physical features in any
manner in the F.I.R. then Delhi High Court has Held that, in the aforesaid circumstances, the
accused court not be convicted on the basis of the testimony of the complainant with regard to his
identifying the accused as robbers in his testimony in Court for the first time.53

When adverse presumption arises from non-mentioning of details in the FIR. In Wilayat Khan v.
U.P. State,67 the Supreme Court held that: “where the telegram about murder given almost
immediately after the offence was committed, does not mention the names of the assailants, the
omission is a strong circumstance in favour of the accused. Though FIR is a previous statement
which can strictly speaking only be used to corroborate or contradict the maker, yet omissions of
important facts, affecting the probabilities of the case are relevant under S.ll of the Evidence Act
in judging the veracity of the prosecution case.In R.K. Pande v. State of M.P.,68 it was held that
where the FIR was lodged well after four hours of the murder by the father of the deceased and his
mother and two sisters figured as eye-witnesses to the fact of stabbing of the deceased by the
appellant but there was no mention of this fact in the FIR nor even of the fact that these three i
witnesses, all members of the family, were witnesses to the occurrence, it was held by the apex
court that these significant omissions in the FIR detracted from the veracity of the I prosecution
case. In Mahesh Chander v. State of Delhi,69 the Apex Court held that where the FIR did not
mention the name of one of the accused even though the witnesses claimed to have known and
seen the accused persons running away from the place of occurrence, the apex court held that the
conduct of the witnesses created a halo of suspicion in the veracity of the prosecution case.

In Mohammad Abdul Hafeez v. State of A.P.,70 it was held that no importance can be attached to
the omission of non-mentioning the names of the accused in the FIR, because, it is distinctly
possible that the victim Satyanarayana was caught unaware and may not be knowing the accused
prior to that date of incident, and therefore, may not be able to give their names. But he could have
at least given some description of the persons
who robbed him, at any rate, he could have given some description of the person - appellant who
was supposed to be sitting next to him and who thrust his hand in his pocket and removed Rs.
100/-. The total absence of any such description would have provided a yard-stick to evaluate the
identification of the present appellant at a later date by the victim Satyanarayana would render his
later identification weak. In Pandu Rang v. State of Hyderabad,71 the apex court held that if cogent
i explanation is given for the non-mentioning of the names of the accused or the witnesses,no
adverse presumption need be drawn against the prosecution nor the so-called non-FIR I witnesses
need be disbelieved.In Karthar Singh v. State of Punjab,72 it was held that in any murder case
where the informant due to a confused state of mind forgot to mention the names of two accused
in the FIR, but did so immediately when it was read out to him and his thumb impression was
taken, it was held that the FIR did not lose its credibility on this account.

t omitted in FIR does not affect the prosecution case. In Jagdip Singh v. State of
Haryana,75 it was held that the omission to mention the names of accused in FIR - Inferences vary
from case to case non mentioning of the name of the accused.In Thakur Prasad v. State of M.P., it
was held that “the absence of the name of the appellant Thakur Prasad in the first information
report and the absence of the name of marks of injury on his person are material and relevant for
the purpose of appreciation of the evidence. The Courts below having come to a definite finding
on the evidence before them that the appellant Thakur Prasad was a member of the unlawful
assembly and took some part in inflicting injuries on Nem Singh in prosecution of their common
object, the Supreme Court cannot go behind the concurrent finding.”

In Merambhai Punjabhai Khachar v. State of Gujarat,78 it was held that: “The appellant is one of
the accused who had neither been named in the FIR nor in any of die dying declaration, nor in the
statements made before the Police as late as 3-4-1991 occurrence having been taken place on 15-
3-1991. Though in the Court he was named by PWs 2,3 and 4.PW-2 who was the informant stated
in his evidence, that when his police statement was recorded on 3-4-1991, he recollected that the
name of this appellant was left out from the complaint, but no steps were taken by him to get his
name recorded. This appellant was given the benefit of doubt and thus, acquitted. In Ratan Singh
v. Himachal Pradesh, held that the Criminal Courts should not fastidious with mere omission in
first information statement, since such statements cannot be expected to be a chronicle of every
detail of what happened, nor to contain exhaustive catalogue of events which took place. The
persons who furnishes firstinformation, to authorities might be fresh with the facts, but he need
not necessarily have the skill or ability to reproduce the details of the entire story without anything
missing therefrom. Some may miss even important details in a narration. Quite often the police
officer, who takes down the first information, would record what informant conveys to him without
resorting to any elicitatory exercise. It is voluntary narrative of the informant without interrogation
which usually goes into such statement. So any omission therein has to be considered along with
other evidence to determine whether facts so omitted never happened at all.

In Jai Singh alias Bandu v. State of Maharashtra.81 It was held that Nonmentioning of surname of
Gansham has no importance. Because, in the dying declaration about it PW-2 Chandra Prabha
deposed that her husband Narendra had stated about ‘Gansham Agarwal’, being one of the
assailants when Rithe, a neighbour had asked Narendra as to who had caused the injuries. Surname
of appellant Gansham is Agarwal thus non mentioning of surname is not of much importance.

ABSENCE OF NAME OF ACCUSED IN FIR

In re Ramaiah89 case honorable court decided that there is nothing in law which suggests that the
FIR must mention every little detail. It is merely a document which i sets the law in motion. So if
the FIR does not give every relevant fact connected with the ;rime or describe the specific part
played by each of the accused, the case for the prosecution cannot be thrown away merely on that
account.Mere non-mention of names of all the accused persons and details of injuries said o have
been suffered by some of the accused in the FIR does not render the FIR weak or unreliable.90
The inference that arises from the fact that the names of the accused are no1 mentioned in the FIR
must vary from case to case.91The fact that the names of some accused are not mentioned in the
FIR is a circumstance which the prosecution has to explain, though no rule of law stipulates that
an accused whose name is not mentioned in an FIR entitled to an acquittal.92Where a party of
about 25 persons including females was suddenly attacked by 8- 10 persons armed with firearms
and one person who got injured by bullet filed FIR with 1-1/4 hour of incident, the fact that he
omitted to name some accused in FIR could not lead to the inference that since he ran away after
getting injured, he might not have seen all accused. His testimony as an eye-witness could be not
be discarded merely because of his omission to mention certain facts in FIR, when 10 persons were
murdered and some injured and the witness must have been under shock when FIR was
recorded.93 In a criminal trial absence of names is the FIR has considerable importance. 94 I When
the circumstances show that the informant could know the accused, the non mention of the names
of accused persons is certainly fatal to the prosecution.95 In Wilayat Khan v. State of UP.96 their
Lordships of Supreme Court as early as in 1953 observed that when names of the assailants were
not mentioned in telegram, then this omission is a strong circumstance in favour of the accused.

Similarly when the name of the assailant was not stated in the FIR, on the other hand, it was stated
that the deceased had been stabbed by some body and the culprits may be arrested and dealt with,
then conviction cannot be sustained.97 Further, when the FIR was lodged 12 hours after the
occurrence and it does not contain the names of the assailants then it would be reasonable inference
for a period of
twelve hours after the occurrence the names of the assailants were not disclosed and this
would wholly belie the prosecution case.98 In Juwai Singh v. State of M.P.," their Lordships of
Supreme Court observed that non mentioning of the names of 7 out of 16 accused by the eye
witnesses in the FIR and not giving the explanation to the effect is fatal to the prosecution.
Similarly when only two out of five accused were named in the FIR and no overt act has been
attributed to these five accused, then one can legitimately entertain doubt about his presence and
participation.100 i When the FIR was detailed one and was not indicating any confused state of
mind of the informant and the victim of the offence of murder, then absence of name from the FIR
would make the FIR unreliable.101 When in a murder trial, FIR did not mention the name of one
of the accused even though the witnesses claimed to have known and seen the accused then such
FIR becomes doubtful. 102No accused can be convicted on the basis of FIR which does not contain
the name of accused.103 The FIR can be used only to corroborate or contradict its author, and
hence where all were charged under Section 302/34, Penal Code acquitting one of them solely on
the ground that his name was not mentioned in the FIR is illegal.104 But in Kritish Chandre
Barman v. State of Assam,105 it was held that omission of names of two accused persons makes
their complicity in the occurrence doubtful.Mere absence of name of accused in FIR is not fatal to
the prosecution when his presence is proved by the corroborative evidence.106 The absence of
names in FIR is not of much consequence especially when the names were disclosed in full at the
time of inquest.107 When FIR was lodged by eye-witnesses of occurrence, then non-mentioning
of name of accused persons in FIR, to when very important role in attributed is fatal to prosecution
as it throws doubt on their participation. When there was bitter enmity between the parties and
when some of the PWs were interested, then those accused whose name is not mentioned in the
FIR should not be convicted.109 Non-mentioning of name of accused person in FIR is not fatal.110
Non mention of the name of the accused in the FIR (when the accused are known) may throw
doubt on the prosecution case. Other evidence being insufficient accused held entitled to
acquittal.111 When the complainant had named five persons as assailants yet the F.I.R. lodged by
him omits the name of one accused and when the omission from the F.I.R. could only be used to
contradict him and he was not cross examined on the point of that omission, 11 *7then it was held
nothing much could be made out of this omission.The mere fact that percentage of accused
mentioned in case diary but omitted in F.I.R. would not affect the prosecution case.113

When there is change in , the name of the accused the prosecution must give explanation
thereof.114No importance can be attached to the omission or non-mentioning of the names of the
accused in the F.I.R. because it is distinctly possible that the victim was caught unaware and may
not know the accused prior to the date of the incident and therefore, may not be able to give their
names.115 It is sufficient it the accused is mentioned in F.I.R. by his office.116 Though the names
of accused persons were not given in F.I.R. lodged just after the occurrence but when the informant
thought his supplementary statement gives further-details within few minutes of lodging F.I.R.
then reliance can be placed on such F.I.R.117 Description in detail about the occurrence and the
accused shall be given in the F.I.R. Sub-Inspector present at the time of lodging F.I.R. should be
careful for getting adequate information about the description of culprits by questioning the
informant.118 Where in a murder trial, F.I.R. did not mention the name of one of the accused sven
though the witnesses claimed to have known and seen the accused then such F.I.R. Decomes
doubtful.119

It is unusual for police officers not to enquire and record in the FIR the full names md addresses
of the persons complained against. Where there were other persons bearing the. accused’s name
in the same village, the possibility or mistaken identity cannot be ruled out.148