A Division Bench led by Justices W.A. Shishak and R.S. Garg held that a conviction cannot be based only on an FIR not lodged by an eyewitness, stressing that an FIR is not substantive evidence under the Indian Evidence Act.
In a landmark ruling reaffirming fundamental criminal procedure, the Chhattisgarh High Court has overturned the conviction of ten men who were sentenced to life imprisonment for murder, holding that the trial court erred in treating the First Information Report (FIR) as substantive evidence despite the absence of eyewitness testimony.
Delivering its decision in Mannu vs State of Chhattisgarh (2001 Local Law (CG) 55) on May 10, 2001, a Division Bench comprising Justices W.A. Shishak and R.S. Garg held that the trial court’s judgment was “contrary to law, settled principles, and the record.” The court emphasized that an FIR, unless proved through its maker or admitted under specific exceptions, cannot form the basis for conviction.
The case arose from an incident in Durg on February 1, 2000, when a man named Ashwani was found injured and later declared dead. Police registered a case under Section 154 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) based on information allegedly received from local residents. However, during trial, none of the witnesses, including those named in the FIR, admitted to giving such information to the police.
Despite the lack of eyewitness testimony and retraction by key witnesses, the Trial Court convicted the accused under Sections 147, 148, and 302/149 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), sentencing each to life imprisonment.
On appeal, counsel Yashwant Tiwari, P. Diwakar, and Kiran Jain argued that the conviction rested entirely on the FIR (Ex. P-15), which was neither recorded by an eyewitness nor corroborated by admissible evidence. They submitted that the FIR’s source was unproven and its contents inadmissible as substantive proof.
The High Court agreed. Justice Garg, writing for the bench, cited a series of Supreme Court judgments — including Damodar Prasad vs State of Maharashtra (AIR 1972 SC 622), Hasib vs State of Bihar (AIR 1972 SC 283), and Apren Joseph vs State of Kerala (AIR 1973 SC 1) — reaffirming that an FIR under Section 154 CrPC is not substantive evidence.
“We are shocked and surprised to see that the learned Court below has based the conviction only on the first information report,” the bench observed. “A first information report which is recorded by a police officer after gathering certain information from witnesses cannot provide a foundation for conviction, especially when those witnesses deny having given such information.”
The bench clarified that the purpose of an FIR is merely to set the criminal law in motion and to assist the police in initiating investigation. It can be used only to corroborate or contradict its maker under Sections 145 and 157 of the Evidence Act, but never as substantive evidence to establish guilt.
The judges further expressed concern over the trial court’s handling of procedural requirements. They noted that despite earlier directions from the High Court, the trial court failed to specify the period of detention for each accused under Section 428 CrPC, and instead attached incomplete records. The bench directed all trial courts in the state to strictly record detention details in every conviction judgment, warning that failure to comply could attract contempt proceedings.
Finding the prosecution’s case unsupported by admissible evidence, the High Court set aside the conviction and sentence, acquitted all the appellants of charges under Sections 147, 148, and 302/149 IPC, and ordered their immediate release unless required in any other case.
Case Details
- Case Title: Mannu vs State of Chhattisgarh
- Court: High Court of Chhattisgarh (Division Bench)
- Judges: Justice W.A. Shishak and Justice R.S. Garg
- Date of Decision: May 10, 2001
- Citation: 2001 Local Law (CG) 55
- Equivalent Citations: 2001 2 MPJR 17, 2001 3 MPHT (Chh) 105, 2001 1 BilasLJ 228
- Case Type: Criminal Appeal Nos. 253, 254, and 277 of 2001
- Subject: Criminal Law / FIR as Evidence / Procedural Fairness
- Acts Referred:
- Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Sections 147, 148, 149, 302
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – Sections 154, 161, 174, 428
- Indian Evidence Act, 1872 – Sections 6, 27, 32(1), 145, 157
- Advocates: Yashwant Tiwari, Gautam Bhaduri, P. Diwakar, Kiran Jain
- Final Decision: Conviction set aside; appeals allowed; appellants acquitted
