herein. Though she was believed by the trial Court, on re- appreciation the High Court found her unreliable owing to the material improvements and omissions made while being examined as PW-8. It was brought out while being cross-examined that she had not deposed at all about a dying declaration made to her by the deceased son. Before analysing her evidence further, it is not inappropriate to refer to a few decisions having bearing on her testimony. 11. FIR is not an encyclopedia disclosing all facts and details relating the entire prosecution case. (See the Page 6 of 21 Criminal Appeal No. 2129 of 2014decisions in Superintendent of Police, CBI & Ors. v. Tapan Kumar Singh4; State of UP v. Naresh & Ors.5; Lalitha Kumari v. Government of UP & Ors.6, and Amish Devgan v. UOI & Ors.7). 12. It is true that the aforementioned decisions would undoubtedly reveal the position that an FIR is not meant to be a detailed document containing chronicle of all intricate and minute details. 13. Even