First Information Report (s.173 BNSS) — BNSS (Criminal Law II) Notes

First Information Report (s.173 BNSS)

Every criminal case has a “first word”, and that word is the FIR. In the Nirbhaya case (2012) the promptness and detail of the first report shaped the entire prosecution. Yet examiners love the quiet FIR — a cryptic phone call, a station-diary entry — and ask whether that is really the “first information” at all.

The First Information Report is the information relating to the commission of a cognizable offence given first in point of time to the officer in charge of a police station, which sets the criminal law in motion.

A. Procedure for recording (s.173(1) BNSS)

1. Information of a cognizable offence is given orally or in writing (or by electronic communication) to the officer in charge.
2. If oral, it is reduced to writing and read over to the informant.
3. It is signed by the informant and entered in the prescribed book (the FIR register).
4. A copy is given free of cost to the informant/victim.
5. Registration is mandatory for a cognizable offence (Lalita Kumari, 2014).

B. Two BNSS innovations

• Zero FIR — registered irrespective of territorial jurisdiction (see 1.9).
• e-FIR (electronic FIR) — information by electronic means is taken on record and must be signed within three days by the giver.

C. Evidentiary value

An FIR is not substantive evidence (it does not prove the facts it states). Its uses are:

• To corroborate the informant under s.160 of the Evidence Act (BSA), if he testifies; or
• To contradict him under s.148 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam (BSA) [old s.145 Evidence Act] if he says something different at trial; and
• As a res gestae or dying-declaration statement in narrow cases.

Its true value is that it records the earliest version before embellishment.

D. Delay in lodging an FIR

Delay does not by itself defeat the case; it only puts the court on guard against embellishment or false implication. If the delay is satisfactorily explained (fear, trauma, medical necessity, sensitivity of a sexual offence), it is condoned.

🧩 WORKED EXAMPLE — the station-diary entry

Facts. A police officer records, in the station diary, a telephonic message about a cognizable offence; he then goes to the spot and records the complainant’s detailed statement.

Rule. A cryptic telephonic message merely reporting a fact is not an FIR; the first detailed information of a cognizable offence that sets the law in motion is.

Apply. The station-diary phone entry is only a “cryptic message”; the detailed statement recorded at the spot is the FIR.

Conclusion. The detailed statement, not the diary entry, is the FIR — the decoy is that the diary entry was “first in time”.

Section 173(1) BNSS: “Every information relating to the commission of a cognizable offence, irrespective of the area where the offence is committed, may be given orally or by electronic communication to an officer in charge of a police station… [and] shall be reduced to writing… [and] be signed by the person giving it.”

In Simple Terms: Any information about a cognizable offence — from anywhere, by any means — must be written down, read back, signed, and a free copy handed to the informant.

flowchart TD
    ROOT["Information of a cognizable offence"]:::root
    ROOT --> A["Reduced to writing & read over"]:::leaf
    A --> B["Signed by informant"]:::leaf
    B --> C["Entered in FIR register"]:::leaf
    C --> D["Free copy to informant/victim"]:::leaf
    D --> E["Investigation begins (s.175)"]:::leaf
    ROOT --> F["Evidentiary value:<br/>corroborate/contradict, NOT substantive"]:::sidebox
    classDef root fill:#FFF8DC,stroke:#000,stroke-width:1px,color:#000;
    classDef leaf fill:#E6F3FF,stroke:#1E3A8A,color:#000;
    classDef sidebox fill:#FDE7C9,stroke:#B45309,color:#000;
    linkStyle default stroke:#888,stroke-width:1px;

Case Laws

• Lalita Kumari v. State of U.P. (2014) — registration of an FIR is mandatory once information discloses a cognizable offence.
• Sheikh Hasib v. State of Bihar (1972) — an FIR is not substantive evidence; it may only corroborate or contradict its maker.
• State of A.P. v. Punati Ramulu (1993) — refusal to record an FIR is a serious dereliction of duty.
• Thulia Kali v. State of T.N. (1972) — delay in lodging an FIR must be explained; unexplained delay is a ground for suspicion.

Back to Top

📄 Full notes + Question Bank (₹199) — every topic in depth, model answers to all past KSLU questions, in one printable PDF. Get the bundle · 10 Solved Problems · All BNSS (Criminal Law II) topics