Section 108 · Paragraph 103. Responsibility of the officer in charge of the police station to record and countersign the information accurately

Sections 154 and 155 (1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure impose an obligation on the officer in charge of a police station to write a correct report of an offense, whether cognizable or non-cognizable, and he or she must countersign both types of reports.
Note
(1) Essential Elements of a Report - For an information to be a First Information Report under Section 154, it must firstly be about a cognizable offense; secondly, it must have been given to the officer in charge of the police station; thirdly, it must either be submitted in writing or, if oral, must be recorded by the officer in charge of the police station; fourthly, its substance must be recorded in the General Diary. According to the Allahabad High Court, the First Information Report must also record the time when it was submitted to the police station.
(2) Telephone Report - For an information to be a First Information Report, it must be about a cognizable offense. If an anonymous person informs the police by telephone that gunfire is taking place at a certain location, it cannot be considered a first information report. However, the first information of a cognizable offense given by telephone can be considered a first information report. However, in another case, where the information received by telephone was recorded, it was not considered a first information report.
(3) Telegraph Report - Information about a cognizable offense can also be given to the officer in charge of a police station by telegram, but unless the person giving the information authenticates it in person, it will not fall within the definition of a first information report.
(4) First Information Report by the Accused - There may be a situation where the first information report is made by the accused and the accused admits his guilt. In such a situation, the confession of crime will not be admissible in evidence under Section 25 of the Indian Evidence Act, but other facts and relevant facts falling under Section 27 of the said Act can be admitted in evidence. However, such a report can be used in favour of the accused. 8. The statement given by the accused during investigation cannot be treated as a first information report under any circumstances. For using the first information report given by the accused under this section as an admission under Section 21 of the Evidence Act, the entire report should be considered in its entirety and not in part. 10. If an accused has given a report against a co-accused, it cannot be used against such accused. Nisar Ali vs. State of Uttar Pradesh. (5) To whom shall the First Information Report be given? - When information about an incident is given to the constable at the beat outpost and the same information is later given to the police station, the information given at the police station will be considered the first information, because the outpost does not fall within the definition of a police station. Similarly, an information given at the beat outpost will not be a report, but if investigation proceedings are initiated on its basis, it may be considered a first information report even if it is not in accordance with Section 154.
The information should be recorded in the same language and terminology in which it was given to the police officer.
If the informant does not sign the information at the time of recording it, this defect will not disqualify it from being admissible in evidence. Although the absence of a signature diminishes the credibility of the report, it does not take away the essence of the report.
(6) Recording a First Information Report is Mandatory - Whenever a police officer is informed of the commission of a cognizable offense, it must be recorded. The police officer cannot postpone recording it until he has conducted a preliminary investigation into its veracity. Even if the report is false, it must be recorded.
A police officer must immediately receive information about a cognizable offense on the spot.
(7) Police Duty in Non-Cognizable Cases - A police officer is required to record the substance of the information even in a non-cognizable case. However, he cannot initiate an investigation without the permission of a competent magistrate. He may direct the informant to proceed before the appropriate magistrate or may personally send the substance of the information to the magistrate for appropriate orders.
First Information Report—Any vague or uncertain information that does not compel the police to initiate an investigation is not information within the meaning of this section. Thus, a subsequent regular First Information Report cannot be held permissible under Section 162. The earlier diary entry was not summoned, nor was a certified copy of it filed. The investigating officer was not asked to ascertain whether it related to the same incident or to a different incident. Therefore, it cannot be accepted as a First Information Report, and no adverse inference can be drawn from its non-production by the prosecution.
Evidential Evaluation of First Information Reports—First Information Reports are not substantial evidence. A detailed account of all the facts is not required.
If the trial court incorrectly evaluated the evidence, the appellate court can re-evaluate the evidence.
The First Information Report is not oral evidence, meaning it is not evidence of the facts mentioned in it.
Where it is initially hypothesized that the First Information Report was deliberately fabricated or was brought into existence long after the occurrence of the incident, all arguments made by the prosecutor regarding the validity of such information will be rejected.
Providing a Copy of the First Information Report - Sub-section 2 of this section states that a copy of the information recorded under this sub-section shall be provided to the informant without any fee, without delay.
Furthermore, when the accused demands a copy of the First Information Report from the Magistrate, the Magistrate shall be bound to provide such a copy to the accused, as the First Information Report is a public document.
Delayed Submission of the First Information Report - The delay in the submission of the First Information Report was not established because the case was registered under Sections 148/149/307 of the Indian Penal Code at 3:25 p.m. on the basis of a dying declaration, and the First Information Report was sent to the Magistrate at 4 a.m. the following day. When the First Information Report was filed on 13-11-1982, and the accused was available but was not arrested before 4-12-1982 and the investigating officer was unable to explain the same, all these things have a serious adverse effect on the veracity of the First Information Report and the entire investigation.
The incident which resulted in the murder took place at about 10:30 am. The police station was 10 km away. The First Information Report was written at 1:45 pm. Thus, this delay cannot be considered.