INTRODUCTION
The Supreme Court of India in a recent ruling has commented that statements recorded in a FIR lose their evidentiary value if the informant dies of natural causes before testifying in court. This landmark decision again talks about the principle of fair trial and due process, reinforcing that FIR statements alone cannot be treated as substantive evidence unless the informant is subject to cross-examination during the trial. This decision aims to eliminate the misuse of FIRs as primary evidence in criminal proceedings and will likely reshape criminal prosecution strategies and the admissibility of evidence in Indian courts. Legal experts are viewing this judgement as a step towards ensuring procedural safeguards in criminal trials, talking about the importance of direct witness testimony to ensure that convictions are not based on untested statements. The judgment is expected to impact numerous cases where FIR statements have played a critical role in securing convictions, particularly in all the cases whether an informant’s statement forms the backbone of the prosecution’s case.
BACKGROUND
The case that led to this ruling was State of Rajasthan v. Madan Singh (2025) 5 SCC 214, where the conviction of the accused was primarily based on the FIR statement of an informant who died before testifying in court. The prosecution argued that since the FIR was registered soon after the alleged crime, it held substantial weight. The plaintiff, however, argued that just relying on the FIR without allowing the accused the opportunity to cross-examine the informant who was mentioned in the FIR, violated the principles of natural justice and fair trial. The Rajasthan High Court maintained the conviction and accepted the prosecution’s reliance on the FIR as primary evidence. The accused appealed in front of the Supreme Court challenging the admissibility of the FIR statement in the absence of the informant’s testimony. The Supreme Court, upon reviewing the case, ruled that an FIR serves only as a means to initiate criminal proceedings and does not amount to substantive evidence unless the informant’s version is examined under oath and subject to cross-examination.
KEY POINTS
- FIR Statements cannot be evidence: The Supreme Court reaffirmed that an FIR is merely a preliminary document to start the investigation and cannot be treated as proof of the facts stated in it unless corroborated by sworn testimony.
- Cross-Examination Is a Fundamental Right: The ruling emphasized that the right of the accused to cross-examine witnesses is a fundamental order of a fair trial. The testimony must be subject to scrutiny, failing which the FIR statement cannot be admitted as primary evidence.
- A death-bed declaration has to meet a strict process: The prosecution wanted to rely on Section 32(1) of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, arguing that an FIR statement should be treated as a dying declaration if the informant subsequently dies. It ruled that an FIR statement does not automatically acquire the status of a dying declaration unless there is clear evidence that the informant was under imminent fear of death when making the statement.
- More due process by Higher Courts: The ruling calls for increased diligence by appellate courts in reviewing evidence and ensuring that convictions are not secured solely on the basis of FIR statements in cases where the informant is unavailable for cross-examination. The judgment serves as a reminder to trial and appellate courts to adhere to strict evidentiary standards and prevent wrongful convictions.
RECENT DEVELOPMENTS
The judgment from the court was the cause of many debates between legal channels and authorities because many practitioners spoke about the importance of filing witness depositions on time to prevent gaps in evidence that may weaken the case. It would lead to huge procedural changes in recording and presenting evidence before the courts. The verdict demands that the investigation process of authorities be made better where corroborative evidence has to be obtained with the case. Courts will begin to experiment to take depositions on video records and also tape-record witness testimony so that they can obtain them even in such cases wherein the informer might not survive up till the time the case goes before the trial judge.
CONCLUSION
The judgment strengthens the aspect of direct testimony and ensures fair trial only. It would prevent further misuse of unverified FIR statements, which in turn would reshape the criminal prosecution strategies and enable law enforcement agencies to strictly ensure substantial evidence over the unverified statements. This judgement by the Supreme Court of India in this case, helps understand how to prevent wrongful convictions when the case is built on evidence that cannot be trusted. Experts also believe that this will make the process stronger and force the investigation to focus on more corroborative evidence that can help make the case stronger and not depend on just testimonies or the FIR.
“PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a National Award and has more
than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal falls
into the category of best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer,
best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer
lawyer, best civil lawyer.”
WRITTEN BY TANMAYEE VELLORE RAGHUNANDAN
