Introduction
An FIR is ordinarily not substantive evidence. Its principal purpose is to set the criminal law in motion and, subject to the rules of evidence, to corroborate or contradict the informant’s subsequent testimony. The position becomes more complex when the informant dies before entering the witness box.
The crucial question is, does the death of the informant automatically transform the FIR into a dying declaration? The answer is no. The decisive considerations are the cause of death, the contents of the statement, the circumstances in which it was made, and the statutory requirements governing dying declarations.
Statutory Foundation
Under Section 26(a) of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 (BSA), a statement made by a person who has died is relevant when it relates to the cause of death or the circumstances of the transaction that resulted in the death.
Importantly, the maker need not necessarily have been under an expectation of imminent death when the statement was made. What matters is the nexus between the statement and the death.
Thus: Death + Relevant Statement + Causal Nexus = Potential Dying Declaration
When Can an FIR Become a Dying Declaration?
The fact that a document is titled an “FIR” does not, by itself, prevent it from being considered a dying declaration. If the FIR was personally made or dictated by the injured informant and the informant subsequently dies from the injuries or transaction referred to in the statement, the FIR may be treated as a dying declaration, provided the requirements of Section 26(a) are satisfied.
The court must nevertheless carefully examine authorship, authenticity, mental fitness, voluntariness, absence of tutoring or coercion, causal connection with death, and consistency with medical and other evidence.
Three Basic Situations
| Situation | Evidentiary Position |
|---|---|
| The informant dies from injuries arising from the incident. | FIR may qualify as a dying declaration if the statutory requirements are satisfied and may constitute substantive evidence. |
| The informant dies from an unrelated cause. | Death does not convert the FIR into a dying declaration. Its contents cannot become substantive evidence merely because the informant subsequently died. |
| The informant survives. | FIR ordinarily remains relevant for corroboration or contradiction and is not substantive evidence of the facts stated in it. |
Judicial Approach
The Supreme Court has consistently clarified the evidentiary status of an FIR lodged by an injured informant who later dies. In Thulia Kali v. State of Tamil Nadu (1972), it stressed the importance of prompt FIRs to avoid fabrication, while in Meharaj Singh v. State of U.P. (1994), it held that deliberate ante-timing destroys the FIR’s evidentiary utility.
More specifically, in Sita Ram v. State of Himachal Pradesh (2025 INSC 359), the Court recognized that an FIR made by an injured person who subsequently dies from those injuries may be treated as a dying declaration under Section 32(1) of the Evidence Act (now Section 26 of the BSA), even without an expectation of imminent death, provided it relates to the cause of death or the circumstances of the transaction resulting in death.
Similarly, in Dayaram & Anr. v. State of M.P. (2019), the Court upheld a conviction under Section 302 IPC (now Section 103 (1) of the BNS) by treating the FIR lodged by the deceased as the first dying declaration, finding it consistent, voluntary, and corroborated by medical evidence.
Together, these rulings establish that the substance of the statement, its causal link to death, and its reliability are decisive in determining whether an FIR can acquire the character of a dying declaration.
Essential Judicial Checks
Before relying on an FIR as a dying declaration, the court should consider:
- Authorship: Was it made by the deceased personally or at his/her direction?
- Mental Fitness: Was the maker conscious and mentally fit?
- Voluntariness: Was the statement voluntary and free from tutoring or coercion?
- Recording: Was the statement properly recorded and authenticated?
- Causal Connection: Is there a clear causal connection between the statement and the death?
- Statutory Scope: Does the statement relate to the cause of death or the transaction resulting in death?
- Corroboration: Is it consistent with medical, forensic, and surrounding evidence?
- Inherent Credibility: Does the statement inspire confidence and appear reliable?
Practical Implications for Prosecution and Defense if the Informant Dies Before Trial
In practice, the death of the informant does not halt criminal proceedings, but it fundamentally alters the evidentiary status of the FIR. Investigating officers must meticulously preserve the original document, verifying signatures, thumb impressions, precise timestamps, and medical fitness records. Because the accused loses the right to cross-examine the maker, courts subject such an FIR to heightened scrutiny for signs of ante-timing, embellishment, or tutoring.
If the prosecution relies solely on the FIR and it fails to qualify as a valid dying declaration or lacks independent corroboration, the case will collapse, leading to an acquittal. Ultimately, the informant’s death does not terminate the trial; rather, it elevates the FIR’s evidentiary value only when a direct causal nexus exists between the incident and the death, transforming the document into a potential dying declaration of substantive weight.
Conclusion
Death alone does not turn an FIR into a dying declaration. If an injured informant files an FIR about the incident and later dies from those injuries, the FIR may be treated as a dying declaration under Section 26(a) of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023, provided legal conditions are met. The key principle is that courts look at the substance of the statement, its link to the death, and its reliability. This ensures that a victim’s final account retains evidentiary value while protecting the accused from untested or hearsay allegations.
