It is a settled legal proposition that FIR is not an encyclopedia of the entire case. It may not and need not contain all the details. Naming of the accused therein may be important but not naming of the accused in FIR may not be a ground to doubt the contents thereof in case the statement of the witness is found to be trustworthy. The court has to determine after examining the entire factual scenario whether a person has participated in the crime or has falsely been implicated.

The informant fully acquainted with the facts may lack the necessary skill or ability to reproduce details of the entire incident without anything missing from this. Some people may miss even the most important details in narration.

Therefore, in case the informant fails to name a particular accused in the FIR, this ground alone cannot tilt the balance of the case in favour of the accused. (Vide: Rohtash v. State of Rajasthan (2006) 12 SCC 64; and Ranjit Singh and Ors. v. State of Madhya Pradesh JT 2010 (12) SC 167.

In Rotash v. State of Rajasthan (2006) 12 SCC 64, this Court while dealing with a similar issue held as under:

The first information report, as is well known, is not an encyclopaedia of the entire case. It need not contain all the details. We, however, although did not intend to ignore the importance of naming of an accused in the first information report, but herein we have seen that he had been named in the earliest possible opportunity. Even assuming that PW 1 did not name him in the first information report, we do not find any reason to disbelieve the statement of Mooli Devi, PW 6. The question is as to whether a person was implicated by way of an afterthought or not must be judged having regard to the entire factual scenario obtaining in the case. PW 6 received as many as four injuries.

In Rattan Singh v. State of H.P., AIR 1997 SC 768, this Court held as under:

Omission of the said detail is there in the First Information Statement, no doubt. But Criminal Courts should not be fastidious with mere omissions in First Information Statement, since such Statements cannot be expected to be a chronicle of every detail of what happened, nor to contain an exhaustive catalogue of the events which took place. The person who furnishes first information to authorities might be fresh with the facts but he need not necessarily have the skill or ability to reproduce details of the entire story without anything missing therefrom. Some may miss even important details in a narration. Quite often the Police Officer, who takes down the first information, would record what the informant conveys to him without resorting to any elicitatory exercise. It is the voluntary narrative of the informant without interrogation which usually goes into such statement. So any omission therein has to be considered along with the other evidence to determine whether the fact so omitted never happened at all.

(See also Podda Narayana v. State of Andhra Pradesh, AIR 1975 SC 1252; Sone Lal v. State of U.P., AIR 1978 SC 1142; Gurnam Kaur v. Bakshish Singh and Ors., AIR 1981 SC 631; and Kirender Sarkar and Ors. v. State of Assam, (2009) 12 SCC 342.

While dealing with a similar issue in Animireddy Venkata Ramana and Ors. v. Public Prosecutor, High Court of Andhra Pradesh, (2008) 5 SCC 368, this Court held as under:

While considering the effect of some omissions in the first information report on the part of the informant, a court cannot fail to take into consideration the probable physical and mental condition of the first informant. One of the important factors which may weigh with the court is as to whether there was a possibility of false implication of the appellants. Only with a view to test the veracity of the correctness of the contents of the report, the court applies certain well-known principles of caution.

Therefore, from the law referred to hereinabove, it is evident that in case the informant fails to name a particular accused in the FIR, and the said accused is named at the earliest opportunity, when the statements of witnesses are recorded, it cannot tilt the balance in favour of the accused.

AIR 2011 SC 255 : (2011) CriLJ SC 283 : JT 2010 (12) SC 167 : (2010) 11 SCALE 391 : (2011) 4 SCC 336