Contradictions Are Not Evidence: Supreme Court Reiterates the Limits of Sections 161, 162,164 of CrPC and Section 145 Evidence Act

⚖️ “In criminal law, contradictions may bend credibility, but they cannot build conviction.”

“Contradictions weaken, but never convict.”

One of the most frequent confusions in criminal trials is the evidentiary value of police statements and recorded contradictions. In its recent decision in Mahabir & Ors. v. State of Haryana (Criminal Appeal Nos. 5560–5561 of 2024, decided 29 January 2025, MANU/SC/0122/2025), the Supreme Court once again clarified that contradictions drawn from police statements are not substantive evidence and cannot form the foundation of a conviction.

---

The Limited Role of Police Statements

During investigation, statements of witnesses are recorded under Section 161 CrPC. However, under Section 162 CrPC, these statements are expressly barred from use in evidence, except for the limited purpose of contradiction.

This contradiction can only be brought in through Section 145 of the Indian Evidence Act, which allows the defence or prosecution (with the court’s permission) to confront a witness with prior inconsistent statements. Crucially:

• These contradictions do not themselves prove the fact in issue.

• Their role is only to test the credibility and reliability of the witness who has resiled.

The Process of Proving Contradictions

For a contradiction to have any legal effect, strict compliance with Section 145 of the Evidence Act is required:

1. The witness must be confronted with the specific portion of the prior statement.

2. If the witness denies making it, the Investigating Officer must be examined to prove that such a statement was indeed made.

3. Even after being “proved,” the contradiction remains only a credibility check—not independent evidence of the facts stated therein.

The Court warned that trial judges cannot use police statements on their own motion as if they were evidence. They become relevant only after being “duly proved” in the prescribed manner.

What About Section 164 CrPC Statements?

Interestingly, the Court extended this principle even to statements recorded by a Magistrate under Section 164 CrPC. While these are procedurally more reliable than police statements, they too do not attain the character of substantive evidence. Their use remains limited to:

• Corroboration (if consistent with court testimony), or

• Contradiction (if inconsistent with court testimony).

But, standing alone, a Section 164 statement cannot secure a conviction.

Why This Matters

The Supreme Court’s insistence is founded on the basic principle of criminal jurisprudence: a man cannot be convicted unless there is substantive evidence, given under oath, tested by cross-examination in court.

Contradictions highlight inconsistency or unreliability, but they cannot supply the missing substantive evidence. In absence of credible, positive evidence, mere contradictions—whether from police diaries or Magistrate-recorded statements—cannot establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt.

Practical Implications for Trials

• For Prosecutors: A hostile witness must not be left with a few mechanical suggestions. Proper and meaningful cross-examination is essential to test the truth.

• For Defence: The use of contradictions is a weapon to discredit, not to substitute for substantive evidence.

• For Judges: It is vital to ensure contradictions are proved as per procedure, and equally vital not to treat them as substantive proof.

The Core Point

The Supreme Court is saying that contradictions—whether drawn from:

• Section 161 CrPC statements (statement to police during investigation), or even

• Section 164 CrPC statements (statement/confession recorded before a Magistrate),

cannot be treated as substantive evidence by themselves.

1. What is “Substantive Evidence”?

• Substantive evidence = evidence that the court can directly rely upon to establish a fact in issue.

• Example: a witness testifying under oath in court about what they saw, or documentary evidence duly proved.

• It is the real backbone of conviction or acquittal.

2. What are “Contradictions under Section 145 Evidence Act”?

• Section 145 Evidence Act allows a witness to be cross-examined with his earlier written statement.

• The earlier statement is not evidence in itself—it serves only a limited role: to show that the witness is inconsistent, unreliable, or untruthful.

• Example:

  • Witness in court says: “I saw A stab B.”

  • In his 161 CrPC statement to police, he had said: “I did not see who stabbed B.”

  • Defence can use Section 145 to contradict him.

  • This contradiction affects credibility but does not prove the fact of who stabbed B.

Thus, the contradiction is only a tool for testing reliability, not independent evidence of the incident.

3. Why Even Section 164 CrPC Statements Are Not “Substantive”

• Section 164 CrPC allows a Magistrate to record witness statements or confessions voluntarily.

• The logic: Since they are not made in court (under oath and subject to cross-examination), they too cannot be treated as substantive evidence.

• They may be used to:

  • Corroborate testimony (if consistent), or

  • Contradict testimony (if inconsistent),
    but they do not by themselves establish guilt or innocence.

4. What the SC is Cautioning Against in Para 81 of said judgment

• Trial courts and High Courts must not fall into the trap of using contradictions as if they were “positive evidence.”

• Even if a contradiction is proved through the Investigating Officer or by confronting the witness, it only “weakens credibility”; it does not “add new facts” into the evidentiary record.

• A conviction cannot rest solely on contradictions. There must be substantive evidence—like direct testimony, supported by corroboration if available.

Illustration

Let’s imagine:

• Prosecution witness says in court: “I did not see the murder.”

• Police statement (161 CrPC): “I saw the accused stab the victim.”

Even if the court says “Aha! The witness is contradicting himself,” it cannot convict the accused based on this police statement. The statement is not evidence—it only shows that the witness is unreliable.

The conviction still needs positive, substantive testimony or other forms of admissible evidence.

 In summary:

Para 81 of said judgment highlights a very important evidentiary principle: Contradictions (under Section 145 Evidence Act) and even prior statements (under Section 164 CrPC) are not substantive evidence. They serve only as credibility tests—not proof of guilt. Conviction must be based solely on substantive legal evidence given under oath in court, not on investigative paperwork or prior statements.

Conclusion

The message from the Supreme Court in Mahabir v. State of Haryana is unequivocal: Contradictions are not evidence. Whether under Section 145 of the Evidence Act, or even when a statement is recorded under Section 164 CrPC, these materials serve only a collateral purpose. Ultimately, convictions must rest on substantive evidence given before the trial court under oath.

This ruling is a timely reminder for trial courts and High Courts not to blur the boundaries between contradiction and evidence—and for prosecutors to rise above perfunctory cross-examinations when dealing with hostile witnesses.

Print Page