General Diary Entry Cannot Precede Registration of FIR, Except Where Preliminary Inquiry Is Needed: Supreme Court

The Supreme Court held that the information disclosing the commission of the cognizable offence needs to be recorded as a First Information Report ("FIR") in the form of a book and not in the General Diary maintained by the Police under the Police Act, 1861.

"In Lalita Kumari v. Government of Uttar Pradesh & Others, (2014) 2 SCC 1, the Constitution Bench of this Court while answering the question as to whether the information disclosing commission of a cognizable offence shall first be entered into the General Diary or in a book kept by the Officer in charge of Police Station which in common parlance is referred as First Information Report has critically analyzed the interplay between Section 154 of CrPC and Section 44 of the Police Act, 1861. This Court also had occasion to analyze the legislative history of CrPC 1861, CrPC 1973 and the Police Act 1861 to answer the aforesaid question, whereby it was held that an Information disclosing commission of a cognizable offence shall first be entered in a book kept by the officer in charge of police station and not in the General Diary.", the Bench Comprising Justices MM Sudresh and SVN Bhatti stated.

"Therefore, it is amply clear that a General Diary entry cannot precede the registration of FIR, except in cases where preliminary inquiry is needed.", the Judgment authored by Sundresh J. clarified.

In Lalita Kumari's (para 70), the Supreme Court explained the inconsistency in the provisions of Section 154 of the Code and Section 44 of the Police Act, 1861, with regard to the fact as to whether the FIR is to be registered in the FIR book or in the General Diary.

"the provisions of Section 154 of the Code will prevail and the provisions of Section 44 of the Police Act, 1861 (or similar provisions of the respective corresponding Police Act or Rules in other respective States) shall be void to the extent of the repugnancy. Thus, FIR is to be recorded in the FIR book, as mandated under Section 154 of the Code, and it is not correct to state that information will be first recorded in the General Diary and only after preliminary inquiry, if required, the information will be registered as FIR."

The bench made these observations while deciding a criminal appeal againstt the concurrent judgments of the trial court and the High Court convicting the appellants for the offence of murder.

The Supreme Court set aside the conviction of the accused against whom a First Information Report (FIR) had not been registered at the first instance however, details of offence was recorded in the case diary maintained by the police under the Police Act, 1861.

As regards the merits of the matter, the Court found that the conviction was based on weak grounds as the evidence on record was not confidence-inspiring. The Court found that that there were alterations in the case diary and some of the pages were also missing. The Court opined that there were strong grounds to believe that the crime did not occur on the date as alleged by the prosecution.

"On perusal of the case diary, we find that at several places such corrections have been made, while some pages were even missing. A clear attempt is made to correct the dates. Such corrections actually were put against the appellant while they indeed helped the case of the prosecution. The finding of the trial court in this regard is neither logical nor reasonable," the Court observed while overturning the conviction.

Also from the judgment : When Police Officers Use Case Diary To Refresh Their Memory, Accused Gets Right To Rely On Case Diary To Cross-Examine : Supreme Court

Case Details: Shailesh Kumar v. State of UP (now State of Uttarakhand)

Citation : 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 162

Click here to read the judgment