92.
The answer is: C
Explanation
The correct option is C: both (a) & (b).
FIR is not a substantive piece of evidence, but it can be used during trial to corroborate or contradict the informant, depending on the circumstances of the case. This means that FIR can be used to support or challenge the testimony of the person who gave the information to the police.
FIR is the first information given to the police about the commission of a cognizable offence. It is not recorded on oath, nor is it subjected to cross-examination in the court. Therefore, it cannot be treated as conclusive proof of the facts stated in it. However, FIR can be used as a previous statement of the informant for the purposes of either corroborating or contradicting him under sections 157 and 145 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872.
Section 157 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 states that a former statement made by a witness relating to the same fact, at or about the time when the fact took place, or before any authority legally competent to investigate the fact, may be proved to corroborate the testimony of the witness in the court.
Section 145 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 states that a witness may be cross-examined as to previous statements made by him in writing or reduced into writing, and relevant to matters in question, without such writing being shown to him, or being proved; but, if it is intended to contradict him by the writing, his attention must, before the writing can be proved, be called to those parts of it which are to be used for the purpose of contradicting him.
Therefore, FIR can be used to corroborate or contradict the informant, depending on whether his statement in the court is consistent or inconsistent with his statement in the FIR. If the statements are consistent, FIR can be used to corroborate the informant and strengthen his credibility. If the statements are inconsistent, FIR can be used to contradict the informant and impeach his credibility. However, FIR cannot be used to prove or disprove the facts stated in it, as it is not a substantive piece of evidence.