A statement under Section 162 CrPC is not substantive evidence and cannot be used generally in trial; it can be used mainly to contradict a prosecution witness in the manner laid down by Section 145 of the Evidence Act, and Tahsildar Singh v. State of U.P. explains that even material omissions may amount to contradictions if properly put and proved.
40-second answer
“Section 162 CrPC imposes a general bar on the use of statements made by witnesses to the police during investigation. Such statements are not substantive evidence and cannot be used to prove the truth of their contents. Their principal use is only for contradicting a prosecution witness in the manner prescribed by Section 145 of the Evidence Act; after the contradiction is brought on record, the relevant part may also be referred to in re-examination for explanation. In Tahsildar Singh v. State of U.P., the Supreme Court clarified that Section 162 is a protective provision, and that material omissions may, in a proper case, amount to contradictions.”
Tehsildar Singh principle
The Constitution Bench in Tahsildar Singh treated Section 162 of CRPC as a provision intended to protect the accused from unreliable or loosely recorded police statements made during investigation. It also clarified that contradiction must be properly put to the witness, and mere marking of the police statement is not enough; if denied, it must be proved through the investigating officer.
Illustration
If a witness states in court that he saw the accused with a knife, but that fact was absent from his police statement, the defence may confront him with that omission if it is material enough to amount to a contradiction. But the police statement itself still does not become substantive evidence of the facts stated in it.
One-line version
“Section 162 CrPC allows police statements to be used mainly for contradiction, not as substantive evidence; Tahsildar Singh says that even material omissions can amount to contradictions if duly proved.”
No comments:
Post a Comment