Failure To Sign FIS Won't Make It Inadmissible When Informant Confirms Contents In Court: Kerala High Court

The Kerala High Court recently held that omission to sign the First Information Statement (FIS) by the informant alone would not make it inadmissible in evidence if the informant gives evidence in tune with the statement given in the form of first information.Justice A. Badharudeen held:“omission to get signature of the informant in the FIS alone would make the FIS totally inadmissible in evidence, is the question, in fact, poses for consideration. In response to this query, it is held that the mere failure or omission on the part of the informant to put signature in the FIS is not a reason to disbelieve the FIS or the entire prosecution case, when the informant while giving evidence admits and supports the case of the prosecution in tune with the statement in the form of first information given by the informant.”The Court was considering an appeal filed by the sole accused in a POCSO case assailing the finding of his guilt. The prosecution allegation was that during the summer vacation of 2017, the accused took a minor girl aged 11 years to his house by offering her toffy and committed aggravated sexual assault on her. After trial, the Special Court found him guilty of offences punishable under Sections 5(m) and 6 of the POCSO Act as well as Section 376(2)(9) of IPC. He was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 15 years with a fine of Rs. 25,000 and in default of payment of fine, further rigorous imprisonment for 6 months. He appealed before the High Court.The appellant contended that the FIS was not genuine since neither the victim nor her mother sign the same. It was further argued that the prosecution failed to prove the exact place of occurrence and the age of the victim. The appellant also submitted that the victim's statement was full of omissions and contradictions, the investigation was biased and that material witnesses were not examined.The Court examined in detail the statement given by the victim while also taking note of the fact that the trial court had carried out the voir dire test to determine her competency to give evidence.As per the victim's evidence, she was staying in a hostel and only used to go to her house during vacations. She identified the accused as her neighbour and also described the assault. Moreover, she had stated that she disclosed the incident to a police officer in the presence of her mother and two others. The statement was identified by her and she also deposed that she gave statement to the Magistrate as well and the same was signed. Additionally, she identified the three material objects, being the clothes worn by her and the accused.While she was cross-examined, she had said that she didn't remember how many persons were present when statement was recorded or how many days after the occurrence, she gave the statement. However, she stated that she divulged the incident to the Anganwadi teacher on the very same day as the occurrence when no one was present.The victim's mother also gave deposition similar to that given by her daughter. The teacher in the victim's school had produced her date of birth before the Investigating Officer and also gave evidence supporting the same. Noting this, the Court opined that there is no basis in the appellant's contention that the victim's age was not proved.The Court was of the view was that the contention that there is no clarity regarding the place of occurrence was also unsustainable. It was noted that recovery of material objects, description of the building by the victim, scene plan as well as the witness statements corroborated with the prosecution's version. One of witnesses being the co-owner of the house had also deposed that he had given it to the accused for rent.With respect to the contention of non-signing of the FIS, the Court remarked that the victim gave candid evidence supporting the prosecution case after admitting lodging of the FIS and also in terms of the said statement.The Court further opined that in evaluation of the evidence, the victim's deposition did not suffer from any material contradictions or omission. Thus, it upheld the conviction.On the question of sentence also, the Court was of the view that the same requires not interference considering the nature and seriousness of the offences committed. Thus, it dismissed the appeal.Case No: Crl. Appeal No.224/2025Case Title: Rahiman v. State of KeralaCitation: 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 272Counsel for the appellant: Rohit Baben, Sreeraj R.Counsel for the respondent: Renjith George – Sr. Public ProsecutorClick to Read/Download Judgment

Failure To Sign FIS Won't Make It Inadmissible When Informant Confirms Contents In Court: Kerala High Court

K. Salma Jennath

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

K. Salma Jennath

Failure To Sign FIS Won't Make It Inadmissible When Informant Confirms Contents In Court: Kerala High Court

K. Salma Jennath

This is a premium content Available exclusively to Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

K. Salma Jennath

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers