INFORMATION IN COGNIZABLE CASES
An accused cannot be convicted solely based on an FIR. In the absence of legal evidence, justice is compromised. In cases like the murder of a married woman in her husband's house, the lack of incriminating evidence due to witness reluctance and careless investigation often leads to culprits going unpunished. 38 DLR 111 Noor Mohammed Vs. The State
এজাহারের ভিত্তিতে অভিযুক্তকে দোষী সাব্যস্ত করা যায় না। বৈধ সাক্ষ্য না থাকলে ন্যায়বিচার ব্যাহত হয়। সাক্ষীদের অনাগ্রহ ও অসতর্ক তদন্ত অপরাধীদের শাস্তি থেকে বাঁচিয়ে দেয়। 38 DLR 111 Noor Mohammed Vs. The State
FIR can only be used to corroborate or contradict the maker's statement. The omission of a fact in the FIR does not invalidate the testimony of other witnesses. 43 DLR 44 (AD) State Vs. Abdus Sattar
এজাহার দায়েরকারীর বক্তব্যকে সমর্থন বা গরমিল করতে ব্যবহার করা যাবে। এজাহারে বাদ পড়া তথ্য অন্য সাক্ষীর বক্তব্যকে বাতিল করে না। 43 DLR 44 (AD) State Vs. Abdus Sattar
The primary purpose of an FIR is to inform the police of a cognizable offence and set the law in motion. It need not contain detailed facts of the case. 43 DLR 87 Ataur Rahman Vs. State
এজাহারের প্রধান উদ্দেশ্য পুলিশকে তথ্য দিয়ে আইনকে সচল করা; মামলার খুঁটিনাটি উল্লেখ করা জরুরি নয়। 43 DLR 87 Ataur Rahman Vs. State
An FIR cannot be treated as such if earlier information and GD entry about the crime exist, but these were not produced in court. 44 DLR 83 Akthar Hossain @ Babu Akthar Vs. State
পূর্বে করা জিডি এন্ট্রি আদালতে পেশ না করলে তা এজাহার হিসেবে গণ্য করা যাবে না। 44 DLR 83 Akthar Hossain @ Babu Akthar Vs. State
Unexplained delay in filing an FIR leads to suspicion, indicating possible manipulation of the prosecution's story (Ref: 14 BLD 94). 44 DLR 492 Abdul Latif @ Budu Vs. The State
এজাহারে অযৌক্তিক বিলম্ব থাকলে তা বাদীর গল্পে হস্তক্ষেপ নির্দেশ করে। 44 DLR 492 Abdul Latif @ Budu Vs. The State
Significant omissions in an FIR and inconsistent witness statements undermine the reliability of the evidence (Ref: 40 DLR 97). 44 DLR 10 (AD) Babar Ali Mollah Vs. State
এজাহারে গুরুত্বপূর্ণ তথ্যের অনুল্লেখ এবং সাক্ষীর অসামঞ্জস্যপূর্ণ বক্তব্য সাক্ষ্যকে অনির্ভরযোগ্য করে। 44 DLR 10 (AD) Babar Ali Mollah Vs. State
Information obtained in police custody, even if confessional, must relate to discovered facts to be admissible in evidence (Ref: 9 DLR 11 SC). 45 DLR 63 Bashir Ali Vs. State
পুলিশ হেফাজতে প্রাপ্ত তথ্য যা আবিষ্কৃত ঘটনার সাথে সম্পর্কিত, অভিযুক্তের বিরুদ্ধে সাক্ষ্য হিসেবে গ্রহণযোগ্য। 45 DLR 63 Bashir Ali Vs. State
Omission of critical statements in the FIR indicates embellishment, rendering the case untrustworthy. 45 DLR 142 Nazrul Islam Vs. State
এজাহারে গুরুত্বপূর্ণ বক্তব্য বাদ পড়লে বাদীর গল্প অতিরঞ্জিত বলে প্রতীয়মান হয়। 45 DLR 142 Nazrul Islam Vs. State
Publication of a report in a newspaper about a cognizable offence does not qualify as "information" under Section 154. 54 DLR 88 (HC) Mohammod Hossain Advocate Vs. Quamrul Islam & Others
পত্রিকায় প্রকাশিত অপরাধের রিপোর্ট ১৫৪ ধারায় “তথ্য” হিসেবে গণ্য হবে না। 54 DLR 88 (HC) Mohammod Hossain Advocate Vs. Quamrul Islam & Others
A police officer can lodge a complaint based on facts he knows, even if he does not investigate. 55 DLR 125 (AD) Abul Hossain (Md) Vs. State
পুলিশ অফিসার তার জানা ঘটনার উপর ভিত্তি করে অভিযোগ করতে পারেন। 55 DLR 125 (AD) Abul Hossain (Md) Vs. State
A GD entry can be treated as an FIR if it is the earliest report but cannot serve as substantive evidence. 1 BCR 244 Jhantu Vs. The State
প্রথমে করা জিডি এন্ট্রি এজাহার হতে পারে, কিন্তু মৌলিক সাক্ষ্য নয়। 1 BCR 244 Jhantu Vs. The State
If the prosecution suppresses the FIR and introduces new witnesses not mentioned in it, the case loses credibility. 2 BCR 230 Makram Ali Vs. The State
বাদীপক্ষ এজাহার লুকিয়ে নতুন সাক্ষী আনলে মামলাটি বিশ্বাসযোগ্য নয়। 2 BCR 230 Makram Ali Vs. The State
An FIR is crucial for understanding the prosecution's case and checking later exaggeration. Extra-judicial confessions are weak and require corroboration. 4 MLR 287 (HC) The State Vs. Hasen Ali
এজাহার বাদীর মামলার মূল বিষয় বুঝতে সাহায্য করে। বিচার বহির্ভূত দোষস্বীকার সমর্থন ছাড়া দুর্বল। 4 MLR 287 (HC) The State Vs. Hasen Ali
Reasonable delay in filing an FIR does not harm the prosecution's case. 8 MLR 61 (AD) Rakhal Chandra Dey Vs. State
যথাযথ ব্যাখ্যাসহ বিলম্বে এজাহার দায়ের করা বাদীর মামলা ক্ষতিগ্রস্ত করে না। 8 MLR 61 (AD) Rakhal Chandra Dey Vs. State
A witness not named in the FIR is unreliable. 5 BLC 197 Babul Mia and 2 others Vs. State
এজাহারে নাম না থাকা সাক্ষী নির্ভরযোগ্য নয়। 5 BLC 197 Babul Mia and 2 others Vs. State
Unexplained delays in filing an FIR make it unreliable. 5 BLC 514 Aslam Jahangir Vs. State
অযৌক্তিক বিলম্বে দায়ের করা এজাহার সন্দেহজনক। 5 BLC 514 Aslam Jahangir Vs. State
Recording an FIR at the police station without clear details of travel and transport raises doubt about its authenticity. 8 BLC 513 (HC) Abdur Rashid Vs. State
ভ্রমণের তথ্য ছাড়া থানায় এজাহার রেকর্ড করা সন্দেহ সৃষ্টি করে। 8 BLC 513 (HC) Abdur Rashid Vs. State
FIR
It is neither the beginning nor the ending of every case. It is only a complaint to get the law or order in motion. It is only an initiative to move the machinery and to investigate into a cognizable offence. It is only at the investigation stage that all the details can be gathered and filled up. The first information report cannot be treated as the first and the last word of a prosecution case-Cr.P.C, S. 154
Al Amin Vs. The State, 19BLD (HCD) 307
FIR
Embellishment of FIR case - The prosecution case becomes shaky due to inconsistencies and embellishments in the FIR case - Cr.P.C, S. 154
Haji Md. Jamaluddin and others Vs. The State, 14BLD (HCD) 33
FIR
Questionable delay in lodging the FIR without any satisfactory explanation makes the prosecution case suspicious - Cr.P.C, S. 154
Abdul Latif alias Budu and others Vs. The State, 14BLD (HCD) 94
FIR
An FIR may not always contain the details of the occurrence. Omission to mention in it some material facts does not render it false information. Under section 265C Cr.P.C., the Court of Sessions must discharge accused persons against whom there is no ground for proceeding, to prevent frivolous cases from causing unnecessary harassment or injury to innocent persons.
In exercising power u/s 439 Cr.P.C., the High Court Division generally does not go into questions of fact but may scrutinise facts and examine the legality or propriety of orders in exceptional cases.
Khandkar Md. Moniruzzaman Vs. The State, 14BLD (HCD) 308
Ref: 35 DLR (AD) 127; 18 DLR (SC) 289; 15 DLR (SC) 150; AIR 1952 (SC) 354; 34 DLR 238; 45 DLR 386; 30 DLR 58; 1984 B.C.R. 231; P.L.D.1978 Lahore 1285
FIR
Non-mentioning of the names of the accused or material facts in an FIR lodged by a non-eyewitness is not always fatal to the prosecution when satisfactorily explained - Cr.P.C. S. 154
Forkan alias Farhad and another Vs. The State, 15BLD (AD) 163
FIR
Its use and importance - Being the first recorded version of the prosecution case, it is significant but not substantive evidence. It can corroborate the informant under section 157 or contradict them under section 145 of the Evidence Act but cannot contradict other witnesses - Cr.P.C, S. 154
The State Vs. Tajul Islam and others, 15BLD (HCD) 53
FIR
It is consistent with justice to rely on the testimony of witnesses whose presence is mentioned in the FIR - Cr.P.C. S. 154
Dalim and another Vs. The State, 15BLD (HCD) 133
FIR
An FIR lodged 35 hours after the occurrence, with no satisfactory explanation, raises suspicion and scope for embellishment - Cr.P.C, S. 154
Md. Abul Khashem Vs. The State, 15BLD (HCD) 205
FIR
An FIR is not substantive evidence but is the earliest recorded version of the prosecution case, used to assess the case in context - Cr.P.C, S. 154
Abdus Subhan Vs. The State, 15BLD (HCD) 281
FIR
The object of an FIR is to report the prosecution's case against alleged offenders promptly. It raises suspicion if the trial story materially differs from the FIR - Cr.P.C, S. 154
Kamala and others Vs. The State, 15BLD (HCD) 449
FIR
Unreasonable delay in lodging the FIR gives rise to suspicion, requiring the Court to seek explanations to assess its effect - Cr.P.C, S. 154
The State Vs. Tajul Islam and others, 15BLD (HCD) 53
FIR
A belated FIR without a satisfactory explanation makes the prosecution case doubtful - Cr.P.C, S. 154
Munsurul Hossain Vs. The State, 16BLD (HCD) 326
FIR
The FIR is not substantive evidence; its value lies in being the earliest recorded version of the prosecution case - Cr.P.C, S. 154
Siraj Miah Vs. The State, 17BLD (HCD) 295
Ref: 1952 SCA 40; 143 Indian Cases 479; 11 DLR (Dhaka) 338; 25 DLR 41
FIR
Recording an FIR aims to capture the initial prosecution version and facts promptly after the occurrence. Courts must compare discrepancies between the FIR and trial stories.
The State Vs. Syed Habibur Rahman Rocket, 20BLD (HCD) 26
FIR
Vital facts omitted from an FIR lodged after a 13-day delay make prosecution witnesses unreliable and entitle the condemned prisoner to benefit of the doubt.
The State Vs. Syed Habibur Rahman Rocket, 20BLD (HCD) 26
FIR
The FIR was lodged 16 hours after recovering incriminating articles despite being only three kilometres from the police station, raising doubts about its genuineness.
Aslam Jahangir Vs. The State, 20BLD (HCD) 426
