Site navigation

In which of the following cases the Supreme Court held that FIR was not substantive evidence and could…

An FIR is not substantive evidence and may be used only to corroborate its maker under Section 160 BSA (formerly s.157 of the Evidence Act), or to contradict him under…

Choose your answer

In which of the following cases the Supreme Court held that FIR was not substantive evidence and could only be used to corroborate its maker?

Select one answer
Answer and explanation

Correct answer D

An FIR is not substantive evidence and may be used only to corroborate its maker under Section 160 BSA (formerly s.157 of the Evidence Act), or to contradict him under Section 148 BSA (formerly s.145); this was held by the Supreme Court in "C. Magesh v. State of Karnataka, (2010)".

Practice for these exams

Related exam syllabi

Related questions in this topic