Omission To Name Some Accused In FIR Is A Relevant Fact Under Section 11 Evidence Act : Supreme Court

The Supreme Court recently noted that a crime witness would usually mention all perpetrators in the FIR. Selectively naming some while omitting others is unnatural, weakening the complainant's account. This omission, though otherwise irrelevant, becomes a relevant fact under Section 11 of the Evidence Act, the Court stated. Holding so, a bench of Justices JB Pardiwala and R Mahadevan upheld the acquittal of an individual in a murder case after noting that the lead complainant (deceased's father) omitted to mention two perpetrators in FIR, who according to him were present at the crime incident accompanying the main accused in the commission of the crime. The Court observed that the complainant's omission to name two perpetrators in FIR, otherwise not relevant, becomes relevant fact under Section 11 of the Evidence Act. “If he claims to be an eye-witness to the incident and is said to have witnessed three persons known to him assaulting his son i.e. the deceased then what was the good reason not to name the other two accused (juvenile Accused) in the FIR. This omission assumes significance and is a relevant fact under Section 11 of the Evidence Act.”, the court observed. The Court cited the case of Ram Kumar Pandey vs. State of Madhya Pradesh AIR 1975 SC 1026 to hold that if the complainant truly saw three people commit the crime, it's highly probable he would mention all of them in the FIR. The omission to mention two of them becomes relevant under Section 11 as it makes the existence of the complainant's eyewitness account highly improbable. In Ram Kumar Pandey's case, the court observed: “No doubt, an FIR is a previous statement which can strictly speaking, be only used to corroborate or contradict the maker of it. But, in this case, it had been made by the father of the murdered boy to whom all the important facts of the occurrence, so far as they were known up to 9-15 p.m. on March 23, 1970, were bound to have been communicated. If his daughters had seen the appellant inflicting a blow on Harbinder Singh, the father would certainly have mentioned it in the FIR. We think that omissions of such important facts, affecting the probabilities of the case, are relevant under Section 11 of the Evidence Act in judging the veracity of the prosecution case.” Accordingly, the Court dismissed the State's appeal and affirmed the acquittal based on the complainant's omission to mention all the perpetrators in the FIR making the prosecution's highly improbable. Case Title: State of Uttar Pradesh v. Raghuvir SinghCitation : 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 158Click here to read/download the judgmentAppearance: For Appellant(s) : Mr. K Parmeshwar, Sr. A.A.G.(NP) Mr. Shreeniwas Patil, Adv. Dr. Vijendra Singh, AOR Mr. Deepak Goel, Adv. Ms. Apurva Aggarwal, Adv. Mr. Shailesh Sharma, Adv. For Respondent(s) : Mr. Rajul Bhargava, Sr. Adv. Mr. Kartikeya Bhargava, AOR Mr. Jasir Aftab, Adv.

Omission To Name Some Accused In FIR Is A Relevant Fact Under Section 11 Evidence Act : Supreme Court

Yash Mittal

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

Yash Mittal

Omission To Name Some Accused In FIR Is A Relevant Fact Under Section 11 Evidence Act : Supreme Court

Yash Mittal

This is a premium content Available exclusively to Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

Yash Mittal

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers