ISLAMABAD: The Supreme Court of Pakistan on Wednesday ruled that no separate First Information Reports (FIR) were needed to record additional information obtained during investigation of an incident reported to the police.
It also declared that ordinarily no person is to be arrested straightaway only because s/he has been nominated as an accused in an FIR, or in any additional version of the incident brought to the notice of the investigating officer (IO), until the IO feels satisfied that sufficient justification exists for the arrest. For such justification, the IO is to be guided by relevant provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C) of 1898 and the Police Rules of 1934.
The court explained that according to the relevant provisions of the Code and the Rules, a suspect was not to be arrested straightaway or as a matter of course and, unless the situation on the ground so warranted, the arrest was to be deferred till such time that sufficient material or evidence became available.
“Upon conclusion of the investigation, the report to be submitted under section 173, Cr.P.C, is to be based upon actual facts discovered during investigation irrespective of the version of the incident advanced by the first informant or any other version brought to the notice of the investigating officer by any other person,” the court declared.
It declared that according to section 154, Cr.P.C., an FIR is only the first information to the local police about commission of a cognisable offence.
For instance, information received from any source that a murder has been committed in such and such village is to be a valid and sufficient basis for registration of an FIR in that regard.
The court held that if the information received by the local police about commission of a cognisable offence does not contain a version as to how the relevant offence was committed, by whom it was committed and in which background it was committed, then that version of the incident is only the version of the informant and nothing more and such version is not to be unreservedly accepted by the IO as the truth or the whole truth.
Upon registration of an FIR, a criminal ‘case’ comes into existence and that case is to be assigned a number and such case carries the same number till the final decision of the matter, it ruled.
The court said that during the investigation conducted after registration of an FIR the investigating officer may record any number of versions of the same incident brought to his notice by different persons in the same case.
The court observed that during the investigation, the investigating officer is obliged to investigate the matter from all possible angles while keeping in view all versions of the incident brought to his notice and, as required by Rule 25.2 (3) of the Police Rules of 1934.
The court noted that it is the duty of an investigating officer to find out the truth of the matter under investigation and his object shall be to discover the actual facts of the case and to arrest the real offender or offenders. “He shall not commit himself prematurely to any view of the facts for or against any person,” the court observed.
The court directed officials concerned to send copies of the judgement to the Inspectors-General of Police of all the provinces and the Islamabad Capital Territory, besides directing the police chiefs to apprise all the Station House Officers in their jurisdiction of the law interpreted by the apex court through the judgement.
The court noted that if the first information to the police reporting commission of a cognisable offence under section 154 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898, is called an FIR (First Information Report) then through the same logic the second information in respect of commission of the same offence ought to be called an SIR and the third information a TIR, but there is no provision in the Code of Criminal Procedure for an SIR or a TIR.
The court made these declarations and observations in its judgement in a human rights case regarding registration of a second FIR in the matter of a police encounter. Petitioner Sughran Bibi’s son, Mohsin Ali, was killed in an alleged encounter by the police. The case was heard by a seven-member larger bench comprising Justice Asif Saeed Khan Khosa, Justice Mushir Alam, Justice Maqbool Baqar, Justice Manzoor Ahmad Malik, Justice Sardar Tariq Masood, Justice Mazhar Alam Khan Miankhel and Justice Sajjad Ali Shah.
The verdict authored by Justice Asif Saeed Khan Khosa observed that the crime had taken place more than a decade ago, and the trial in the matter lied pending with the court for many years, but unfortunately no significant progress was made. “The delay caused and the apathy displayed in the matter has been found by us to be shocking, to say the least,” the court maintained. The court directed the trial court to conclude the trial within the next four months and submit a report in that regard before the apex court.
Published in Daily Times, May 24th 2018.