FIR (First Information Report) may be lodged by an accused person himself. FIR may be lodged by an accused person for two reasons: First, accused who has committed horrendous murder would himself come to the Police Station and confess the crime.

Second, the accused may file a false FIR about the offence for protecting his skin. A police officer must draw an FIR whenever it is brought to his notice that a cognizable offence has been committed. The information that can be used to draw the FIR can be provided by the accused. Upon receiving information about the cognizable offence, Officer-in-Charge of the Police Station is not allowed to refuse the registration of the case.

The accused might confess his involvement in the commission of a crime and thus lodge the FIR. Accused after commission of crime might go to Police Station and give detailed information as to what happened and what he did, then, based on that information an FIR can be formulated. Because the information came from the accused, it might have certain difficulties in proving it against him.

An accused would generally not file the FIR, as it is against his interest in prosecution. However, FIR cannot be used as evidence against the accused when the police officer has to record the information provided by the accused as FIR (1974 Kerala L.T. 131). Any FIR which has a confession of the accused cannot be admitted to as evidence either partly or fully. Confessionary FIR containing the confession of guilt of the accused is inadmissible as evidence [1990 (2) Crimes 288].

A statement contained in the FIR furnished by one of the accused in the case cannot in any manner be used against another accused, it was held in the case of Bandla Muddi Atchutha Ramaiah and others v. State of A.P.

A father said he saw the body of his son floating in the waters of the well. It was FIR information. Further investigations revealed that the accused in his son’s murder was his father. Section 21 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 stated that the FIR could be admitted as an admission to the required extent and applied against that extent alone (AIR 1964 SC 1850). The FIR becomes admissible to the extent such prohibition is exempted under Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (AIR 1968 All 37, AIR 1966 SC 119)

Such FIR filed by the accused person does not come under Section 162 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. Section 162 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 discusses the use of statements made to the police in the course of the investigation. Under this section, testimonies given by witnesses to the police during investigations shall not be admissible as evidence during the trial, except where they can be used to contradict the witness’ testimony in the trial.

Nonetheless, this provision does not extend to the FIR itself. FIR is the exception to Section 162 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 since it constitutes the substantive evidence in a criminal case which is admissible in court and used for establishing the complaint, description of the offence and identification of the persons involved.

Consequently, any statement made by the accused in the FIR can be used as evidence in the trial as it is considered part of the overall evidence. Nevertheless, it is imperative to assess the validity and authenticity of these statements, as they are self-serving and will have to be verified with other evidence.

Section 25 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 deals with the admissibility of confessions made to the police. It provides that any confession made to the police officer, whether before or after an investigation should not be admitted as evidence against a person charged with any offence.

Therefore, if one person accuses another of violating the law and this individual confesses to a police officer, that confession may not be admitted as evidence for the trial. This provision was introduced to avoid coercion, undue influence, and wrong ways of getting confessions from the accused by the police. Nevertheless, there is an exception to this. Confessions made to a police officer can be used as evidence in court if they are protected under Section 21 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872.

This law governs the admissibility of confessions. Confession is relevant under Section 21of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 in the presence of circumstances making it voluntary and trustworthy. However, the court will critically analyse the conditions which led to the confession so as to establish whether the confession was voluntary and genuine.

When it comes to determining the admissibility of non-confessional information, multiple sections of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 come into play. Section 18/21 deals with its admission against the accused. Meanwhile, Section 157 allows it for the purpose of corroborating the maker's statement, and Section 145 permits its use for refreshing the informer's memory.

In addition, Section 155 allows it to be employed for impeaching the credit of an informer, while Section 8 can be invoked to prove the informer's conduct. Section 32 (1) enables its utilization as a Dying Declaration, while Section 6 comes in handy when injuries are inflicted in the presence of the SHO/OC in a Police Station. Section 160 is applicable when the informer can't recall the facts from memory but firmly believes that they were accurately reported in the FIR when it was written and read.

The FIR is a government document prepared under section 154 CrPC and a certified copy of it can be admitted in evidence under section 77 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. The FIR by an accused cannot be taken as evidence against another accused because it was lodged by an accused person and not by a witness. However, if it is confirmed that an injured person had been shot and removed to hospital, it is sufficient for registration of a case.

Is it clear, certain and founded upon particular facts to show commission of a cognizable offence or suspicion of commission of cognizable offence? This question has to be asked by a police officer before registration of FIR. Every single case relies on its own circumstances and the police officer should exercise his own judgment and due diligence in checking the information.

Conclusion
When an accused willingly confesses to his involvement in a crime and initiates the lodging of an FIR, a unique legal scenario unfolds. The voluntary nature of the confession becomes a focal point, raising questions about its authenticity and the accused's state of mind during the admission. Courts are cautious about potential coercion, ensuring that the confession was made without undue influence, fear, or pressure.

This voluntary admission, leading to the formulation of an FIR, introduces complexities in the subsequent legal proceedings, necessitating a thorough examination of the confession's validity and the circumstances surrounding its disclosure.

The difficulty in proving a confession originating from the accused lies in the inherent potential for self-incrimination and the need for corroborative evidence.

For legal system, additional evidence is necessary in most cases except where there is a full confession by the accused persons themselves. Voluntariness of admission, understanding of rights and possible falseness of confession create further problems regarding the evidence. It is extremely important that courts make proper judgments that safeguard any person’s rights against self-incrimination and ensure fair trials; they must be meticulous in evaluating the validity of each confession so as to avoid any kind of miscarriage of justice.

References:

• FIR, Arrest & Bail, Madabhushi Sridhar, Asia Law House, Hyderabad
• First Information Report, Mangari Rajender, Asia Law House, Hyderabad
   

Written By: Md.Imran Wahab, IPS, IGP, Provisioning, West Bengal
Email: [email protected], Ph no: 9836576565