Rattan Singh v. State of Himachal Pradesh
Bench: Division Bench — 2 Judges (K.T. Thomas & D.P. Wadhwa JJ)
Parties
Facts of the Case
Rattan Singh was convicted of murder. The prosecution relied on the First Information Report and other evidence. The defence challenged the evidentiary value of the FIR — arguing that the FIR is not substantive evidence and cannot be used to prove the facts stated in it. The Supreme Court articulated the precise evidentiary nature of the FIR and how it can and cannot be used in evidence.
Legal Issues Before the Court
- 1What is the evidentiary value of an FIR under the Indian Evidence Act — is it substantive evidence or only corroborative?
- 2Can the FIR be used to contradict or corroborate the informant's testimony in court?
- 3Is an FIR a 'statement made to police' within the meaning of Section 162 CrPC — and what are its exclusions?
The Judgment
The Supreme Court authoritatively stated the evidentiary value of the FIR: it is not substantive evidence of the facts stated in it — meaning it cannot by itself prove those facts. However, it can be used for three limited purposes: (1) to contradict the informant if they depose differently in court (under Section 145 IEA); (2) to corroborate the informant's testimony in court; (3) to show when the information was first given to police (as circumstantial evidence). If the first informant is not the complainant but an eyewitness, the FIR statement can also be used to show the first account given.
Key Principles Laid Down
FIR IS NOT SUBSTANTIVE EVIDENCE: An FIR (First Information Report under Section 154 CrPC / Section 173 BNSS) is not substantive evidence of the facts stated in it. It does not prove those facts — only a deposition in court (under oath, subject to cross-examination) is substantive evidence.
FIR CAN BE USED FOR CONTRADICTION: If the informant (person who lodged the FIR) gives evidence in court that differs from the FIR, the FIR can be used to contradict them under Section 145 IEA (Section 148 BSA). This is one of the most practically important uses of the FIR.
FIR CAN BE USED FOR CORROBORATION: If the informant's court evidence is consistent with the FIR, the FIR can be used to corroborate their testimony — showing that they gave the same account immediately after the incident.
FIRST COMPLAINT AS CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE: The FIR is relevant as circumstantial evidence to show: when the complainant first made the complaint, what was stated at that time, and whether there was any delay in reporting. Delay in FIR filing can be used against the prosecution.
SECTION 162 CrPC EXCLUSION: Statements made to police during investigation (Section 162 CrPC / Section 180 BNSS) are inadmissible as evidence. The FIR is not a Section 162 statement — it precedes the investigation. Once investigation begins, Section 162 applies.
Impact on Indian Law
Rattan Singh (1997) is the authoritative statement on the evidentiary value of FIRs — a question that arises in virtually every criminal trial. The three permitted uses (contradiction, corroboration, circumstantial evidence of first complaint) are cited in thousands of criminal judgments. The case is particularly important when the informant's court testimony differs from their FIR — the defence can use the FIR to impeach them, and the prosecution can use it to show consistent prior account. The BSA 2023's Section 148 and related provisions are interpreted through this framework.
Frequently Asked Questions
Is an FIR substantive evidence in a criminal trial?
No. Per Rattan Singh (1997), an FIR is not substantive evidence — it does not by itself prove the facts stated in it. An FIR can be used for three limited purposes: (1) to contradict the informant if they testify differently in court; (2) to corroborate the informant's testimony; and (3) as circumstantial evidence showing when the first complaint was made and what it contained.
How can an FIR be used to contradict a witness in court?
If the person who lodged the FIR (the informant) gives evidence in court that differs from what they stated in the FIR, the FIR can be proved and used under Section 145 IEA (Section 148 BSA) to contradict them — showing that their current testimony is inconsistent with their first account. This is a standard technique both for the defence and prosecution in criminal trials.