Difference Between Section 154 & 161 of Cr.P.C.

(FIR & Statement of Witnesses Recorded by Police)

Text of Section 154

Information in cognizable cases: Information relating to the, commission of a cognizable offence if given
orally to an officer incharge of a police station, shall reduced to writing by him or under his direction and
then read over to the informant and every such information, whether given in writing or reduced to
writing as aforesaid, shall be signed by the person giving it, and the substance thereof shall be entered in
a book to be kept by such officer in such form as the Provincial Government may prescribe in this behalf:

Text of Section 161

Examination of witnesses by police: (1) Any police-officer making an investigation under this Chapter or
any police-officer not” below such rank as the Provincial Government may, by general or special order,
prescribe in this behalf, acting on the requisition of such officer may examine orally any person supposed
to be acquainted with the facts and circumstances of the case.

(2) Such person shall be bound to answer all- questions relating to such case put to him by such officer,
other than questions the answers to which would have a tendency to expose him to a criminal charge or
to a penalty or forfeiture.

(3) The police officer may reduce into writing any statement made to him in the course of an
examination under this section, and if he does so he shall make a separate record of the statement of
each such person whose statement he records.

....

...

..

Differences between Section 154 and 161:

As to first hand/ subsequent Information:

Section 154 deals with first information regarding commission of an offence while section 161 deals with
any subsequent statement (supplementary statement).

As to object and purpose:

The object of section 154 is to set law in motion against the commission of an offence while the object of
section 161 is to collect evidence regarding commission of any offence by examining the material
witnesses.

As to signing the statement recorded:

Statement under section 154 is signed by the complainant while signing of statement under section 161
is prohibited under section 162.

As to discretion to record statement:

Under section 154, police officer is duty bond to record the statement relating to a cognizable offence
while under section 161, it is prerogative of police officer to record the statement of a witness examined.

As to entry in prescribed register:

Statement under section 154 shall be entered in prescribed registered while no such requirement for
recording statement under section 161.....

....

....

...

...

Object and Purpose of Section 154

Purpose of F.I.R. is to set criminal law in motion and to obtain first hand spontaneous information of
occurrence, in order to exclude possibility of fabrication of story or consultation or deliberation or
complainant has time to devise or contrive anything to his advantage and to the disadvantage of others
and to safeguard the accused of such like happenings occurrences in F.I.R. Spontaneity of F.I.R. is the
guarantee of truth to a greater extent.
Object and Purpose of Section 161

Object and purpose of section 161 is to collect evidence regarding commission of an offence by
examining and recording the statements of the witnesses material in respect of commission of the
offence.

In the light of Case Laws of Superior Courts

2010 PCrLJ 1460:

Ss. 154 & 156—First Information Report—First Information Report was a document which was entered
on the complaint of the informant into a book, maintained at the Police Station under S.154 , Cr. P. C. —
First Information Report was signed/thumb-marked by the informant while the supplementary
statement was recorded under S.161 , Cr. P. C. and was not signed—First Information Report would bring
the law into motion, and the police would start investigation of the case under S.156 Cr.P.C.-Any
statement or further statement of the first informant recorded during the investigation by police, would
neither be aquated with First Information Report nor read as part of the same; at the most it could be
treated like a statement of a witness recorded under S.161 , Cr.P.C.

2008 MLD 1007:

Ss. 154 , 156 & 161 —“First Information Report” and “‘supplementary statement”—Distinction—First
Information Report was a document which was entered on the complaint of the informant into a book,
maintained at the Police Station under S.154 Cr.P.C.—First Information Report was signed/thumb marked
by the informant, while the supplementary statement was recorded under S.161 Cr.P.C. and was not
signed—F.I.R. brings the law into motion, the police under S.156 Cr.P.C. starts investigation of the case—
Any statement or further statement of the first informant recorded during the investigation by the police
would neither be equated with First Information Report nor read as part of it; at the most it could be
treated like a statement of a witness recorded under S.161 Cr.P.C.

....

...

...In the light of Case Laws of Superior Courts

2010 PCrLJ 1460:

Ss. 154 & 156—First Information Report—First Information Report was a document which was entered
on the complaint of the informant into a book, maintained at the Police Station under S.154 , Cr. P. C. —
First Information Report was signed/thumb-marked by the informant while the supplementary
statement was recorded under S.161 , Cr. P. C. and was not signed—First Information Report would bring
the law into motion, and the police would start investigation of the case under S.156 Cr.P.C.-Any
statement or further statement of the first informant recorded during the investigation by police, would
neither be aquated with First Information Report nor read as part of the same; at the most it could be
treated like a statement of a witness recorded under S.161 , Cr.P.C.

2008 MLD 1007:

Ss. 154 , 156 & 161 —“First Information Report” and “‘supplementary statement”—Distinction—First
Information Report was a document which was entered on the complaint of the informant into a book,
maintained at the Police Station under S.154 Cr.P.C.—First Information Report was signed/thumb marked
by the informant, while the supplementary statement was recorded under S.161 Cr.P.C. and was not
signed—F.I.R. brings the law into motion, the police under S.156 Cr.P.C. starts investigation of the case—
Any statement or further statement of the first informant recorded during the investigation by the police
would neither be equated with First Information Report nor read as part of it; at the most it could be
treated like a statement of a witness recorded under S.161 Cr.P.C.

2008 SCMR 1556:

Ss. 154 , 156 & 161 —“F.I.R.” and “supplementary statement” of complainant—Distinction—F.I.R. is the
document which is entered into the book maintained at the police station at the complaint of the
informant and brings the law into motion, whereby police starts investigation of the case under S.156,
Cr.P.C.—Any statement or further statement of the first informant recorded during the investigation by
police would neither be equipped with First Information Report nor read as a part of the same.

2008 SCMR 06
F.I.R. is the document, which is entered under section 154, Cr.P.C. into book maintained at the police
station on the application of the complainant. It brings the law into motion. The police under section
156, Cr.P.C. starts investigation of the case. Any statement or further statement of the complainant
recorded during investigation by the police would neither be equated with F.I.R. nor read as part of it,
therefore, subsequent supplementary statement is also considered as statement recorded under section
161, Cr.P.C. which is not signed or thumb-marked.

2014 MLD 337:

Ss.154 & 161 —F.I.R., registration of—Statement of witness—Scope—F.I.R. is the document which is
entered under S. 154 , Cr.P.C. and the same brings law into motion—Any statement or further statement
of complainant recorded during investigation by police is considered as statement under S. 161 Cr.P.C.

2012 YLR 2636:

....Ss. 154 & 161 —Second F.I.R., registration of—Scope—Once an F.I.R. is got registered by one party and
divergent version contained therein was not called for inasmuch as the ball had already been set rolling;
and the aggrieved person (of the F.I.R.) had not appeared before the police to give his statement in the
shape of section 161 , Cr.P.C in the same F.I.R., then it was the statutory duty of the police to come and
to trace out truth and real culprits—When an aggrieved person appeared before the court for the
registration of his version, then it was the duty of the court to register a second F.I.R. if prima facie case
was made out against the proposed accused—Application was allowed accordingly.

2010 YLR 1377:

Ss. 154 & 161 —Delayed F.I.R. and statement under S.161 , Cr.P.C.—Delayed statement recorded under
S.161 , Cr. P. C., could not substitute an F.I.R. because there was no provision available to give preference
to a statement recorded by the Police under S.161 , Cr. P. C. over the F.I.R. which was lodged under
S.154 , Cr.P.C.—Statement recorded by Police could neither be equated with the F.I.R. not it could be
taken into consideration unless strong reasons were shown.
2010 PCrLJ 1460:

Ss. 154 , 156 & 161 —Supplementary statement of complainant—Value—Investigation of a criminal case
on the basis of a supplementary statement of complainant is a recent innovation devised by
incompetent police officers, who have gone beyond the limits of law to cut short the process of
investigation, which has been causing indescribable damage to prosecution cases—Such sort of
statements cannot be considered as an integral part of the F.I.R. and at the most it can be treated as a
statement under S. 161 , Cr.P.C.—F.I.R. recorded under S. 154 , Cr. P. C. contains the first hand
information whereas no such qualification is attached to a subsequent or secondary statement of the
complainant.

2006 YLR 1881:

—Ss. 154 & 161 —Recording of F.I.R.—Supplementary statement—F.I.R. was a document which was
signed/thumb marked by informant, while supplementary statement was recorded under S.161 , Cr. P. C.
which could not be equated with F.I.R.—In most of cases supplementary statement was recorded only to
fill in the lacunas of prosecution case or to add the number of accused.

2003 SCMR 1419:

—-Ss.154 , 156 & 161 —First Information Report and supplementary statement by the complainant—
Evidentiary value—First Information Report is a document, which is entered at the complaint of the
informant into a book, maintained at the police station under S.154 , Cr.P.C.—First Information Report is
signed/thumb-marked by the informant while the supplementary statement is recorded under S.161 ,
Cr.P.C. and is not signed —F.I.R. brings law into motion—Police under S.156, Cr.P.C. starts investigation of
the case—Any statement or further statement of the first informant recorded during the investigation by
the police would neither be equated with F.I.R. nor read as part of the same and the value of the
supplementary statement therefore will be determined keeping in. view the principles enunciated by the
superior Courts in this behalf.

PLD 2002 Lah 110:

Criminal Procedure Code (Cr.P.C) —-Ss.154 & 161 —“F.I.R.” and “supplementary statement” —
Distinction–Supplementary statement cannot be equated with the F.I.R. and it cannot be considered or
read as part of the F.I.R.–F.I.R. and supplementary statement are two different things —F.I.R. is a
document which is entered into a book maintained at the police station and thumb-marked or signed by
the first informant, while the supplementary statement is recorded under S.161 , Cr.P.C. and is not signed
or thumb-marked.

2013 MLD 1609:

154—First information report—Scope—object of S. 154, Cr.P.C. was to give information of cognizable

offence to Station House Officer to set the machinery of law into motion—Fate of accused nominated in
F.I.R. could not be decided until and unless some evidence had been produced in the court—F.I.R. could
not be treated as substantive piece of evidence which could be used for corroboration or contradiction.

2011 SCMR 45:

S.154—First Information Report—object , purpose and scope—Purpose of F.I.R. is to set criminal law in
motion and to obtain first hand spontaneous information of occurrence, in order to exclude possibility of
fabrication of story or consultation or deliberation or complainant has time to devise or contrive
anything to his advantage and to the disadvantage of others and to safeguard the accused of such like
happenings occurrences in F.I.R.—Spontaneity of F.I.R. is the guarantee of truth to a greater extent.

2010 P

2010 PCrLJ 231:

154—First Information Report—object and purpose—Statutory duty was cast upon the officer of a Police
Station to enter every information regarding the commission of a cognizable offence in a book
maintained by such officer in the prescribed form—Such step, in ordinary parlance, was called the
registration of First Information Report—Police Officer could not delay the recording of the F.I.R., once
information regarding the commission of a cognizable offence had been given—Violation of that
mandatory and pre-emptory duty was an aberration in Police discipline—Such a deviation in Police
vocabulary was called `Barking’ which was punishable under Police Act and Police Rules—Use of word
`shall’ in S.154, Cr.P.C. indicated that it did not give discretionary power to the Police Officer to delay or
refuse registration—Police Officer had no other option, but to proceed with registration of crime report
without any delay—Aggrieved person had a right that his complaint about the commission of a
cognizable offence, would be registered in the Police Station as a preliminary step before investigation
was undertaken—Registration of First Information Report was a condition precedent to the launching of
the investigation—Such a measure, would rule out the possibility of deliberation, consultation and
enquiry before furnishing the information—Element of delay in lodging the crime report was to be-
treated with caution because there was a tendency to involve innocent people during interval—Longer
the intermission, the greater were the chances of false implication–Investigation that followed the
registration of a crime, had more value than the -investigation which would precede registration of F.I.R.
—Ordinarily there could be no investigation in a cognizable case without first registering the crime report
—Having registered the case, the Police Officer could proceed with the investigation without a formal
permission from the court which had the territorial jurisdiction to try that case.

2002 PCrLJ 1785:

Criminal Procedure Code (Cr.P.C) —-Ss. 154 & 156—First Information Report—object of—Primary object
of F.I.R. under S.154 Cr.P.C. was to convey information about commission of a cognizable offence which a
Police Officer was competent to investigate as contemplated under S.156, Cr.P.C.—F.I.R. was meant to set
in motion Investigating Agency—Minute details about incident were not necessarily to be given in F.I.R.
and F.I.R. could not be ruled out of consideration merely on account of omission of minor fact