What is the use of statement under Section 162 of CRPC in criminal trial?

 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

Print Page

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

Supreme court: Police Presence During Test Identification Makes Statements By Identifiers Fall Within The Ban Of Section 162 CrPC

To establish the presence of Chunthuram at the

place of incident, the Courts relied on the Test

Identification Parade and the testimony of Filim Sai

(PW-3). The Test Identification evidence is not

substantive piece of evidence but can only be used, in

corroboration of statements in Court. The ratio in

Musheer Khan vs. State of Madhya Pradesh 

 (2010) 2 SCC 748 will have a

bearing on this issue where Justice A.K. Ganguly,

writing for the Division Bench succinctly summarised

the legal position as follows:

“24. It may be pointed out that

identification test is not substantive

evidence. Such tests are meant for the

purpose of helping the investigating agency

with an assurance that their progress with

the investigation into the offence is

proceeding on right lines.

10. The infirmities in the conduct of the Test

Identification Parade would next bear scrutiny. The

major flaw in the exercise here was the presence of the

police during the exercise. When the identifications

are held in police presence, the resultant

communications tantamount to statements made by the

identifiers to a police officer in course of

investigation and they fall within the ban of section

162 of the Code. (See Ramkishan Mithanlal Sharma vs.

The State of Bombay) (1955) 1 SCR 903

 [REPORTABLE]

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

Criminal Appeal No.1392 of 2011

Chunthuram Vs State of Chhattisgarh 

Dated: OCTOBER 29, 2020

Author: Hrishikesh Roy, J.

Print Page

How to prove contradiction in criminal case?

In her further Cross-Examination, however, she admitted that her statement was properly recorded by Narender Singh Patel (PW-9), Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Baramandal, District Almora. She also admitted that she had stated in her dying declaration that there was one jerry can. In our opinion, the witness, in her dying declaration dated 1.7.1989, mentioned about one jerry can as she had seen the accused throwing the petrol from one jerry can. Very strangely, this contradiction was not got proved from Narender Singh Patel (PW-9), Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Baramandal, District Almora nor was it put to him. Unless a contradiction is proved by putting it to the person who records the original statement, such contradiction is of no consequence. The only Cross-Examination of Narender Singh Patel (PW-9), Sub-Divisional Magistrate was to the effect that there was no certification on the dying declarations to the effect that both the witnesses were in fit condition to give the statement. When we see again the evidence of Vimla Devi (PW-1), even she was not specifically questioned about her previous statement nor was she given an opportunity to explain as to why she had made the statement in her evidence that there were three jerry cans as in her statement in dying declaration that there was one jerry can. Unless the witness is specifically given an opportunity to explain such contradiction, it cannot be taken note of. The very purpose of putting the contradiction to the witness is to give an opportunity to him/her to explain a contradictory statement, if any. There can be no dispute that when a witness making a dying declaration survives, the said dying declaration does not remain substantive evidence. However, as held inRamprasad v. State of Maharashtra [1999 (5) SCC 30] when such dying declaration has been recorded by a Magistrate then it can be used as a corroboration to the oral evidence of such witness. This Court in the aforementioned decision of Ram Prasad (cited supra) specifically held that where such statement is recorded by a Police Officer, its user is barred under Section 162Cr.P.C. However, where it is recorded by a Magistrate under Section 164, Cr.P.C. it becomes usable to corroborate the witness as proved under Section 157 of the Evidence Act. 

Reportable

Supreme Court of India

Sunder Singh vs State Of Uttaranchal on 16 September, 2010

Bench: V.S. Sirpurkar, A.K. Patnaik

Citation:(2010) 10 SCC611,2011 AIR SCW2455

Print Page

Whether court can suo moto make use of statements to police not proved in compliance with S 145 of Evidence Act?

 Statements to police not to be signed–Use of statements in evidence.–(1) No statement made by any person to a police officer in the course of an investigation under this Chapter, shall, if reduced to writing, be signed by the person making it; nor shall any such statement or any record thereof, whether in a police diary or otherwise, or any part of such statement or record, be used for any purpose, save as hereinafter provided, at any inquiry or trial in respect of any offence under investigation at the time when such statement was made:

Provided that when any witness is called for the prosecution in such inquiry or trial whose statement has been reduced into writing as aforesaid, any part of his statement, if duly proved, may be used by the accused, and with the permission of the Court, by the prosecution, to contradict such witness in the manner provided by section 145 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (1 of 1872); and when any part of such statement is so used, any part thereof may also be used in the re-examination of such witness, but for the purpose only of explaining any matter referred to in his cross-examination.

(2) Nothing in this section shall be deemed to apply to any statement falling within the provisions of clause (1) of section 32 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (1 of 1872), or to affect the provisions of section 27 of that Act.

Explanation.- An omission to state a fact or circumstance in the statement referred to in sub-section (1) may amount to contradiction if the same appears to be significant and otherwise relevant having regard to the context in which such omission occurs and whether any omission amounts to a contradiction in the particular context shall be a question of fact.

15. Section 162 Cr.P.C. bars use of statement of witnesses recorded by the police except for the limited purpose of contradiction of such witnesses as indicated there. The statement made by a witness before the police under Section 161(1) Cr.P.C. can be used only for the purpose of contradicting such witness on what he has stated at the trial as laid down in the proviso toSection 162 (1) Cr.P.C. The statements under Section 161 Cr.P.C. recorded during the investigation are not substantive pieces of evidence but can be used primarily for the limited purpose:- (i) of contradicting such witness by an accused under Section 145 of Evidence Act;

(ii) the contradiction of such witness also by the prosecution but with the leave of the Court and (iii) the re-examination of the witness if necessary.

16. Court cannot suo moto make use of statements to police not proved and ask question with reference to them which are inconsistent with the testimony of the witness in the court. The words in Section 162 Cr.P.C. “if duly proved” clearly show that the record of the statement of witnesses cannot be admitted in evidence straightway nor can be looked into but they must be duly proved for the purpose of contradiction by eliciting admission from the witness during cross-examination and also during the cross-examination of the investigating officer. Statement before the investigating officer can be used for contradiction but only after strict compliance with Section 145 of Evidence Act that is by drawing attention to the parts intended for contradiction.

17. Section 145 of the Evidence Act reads as under:

145. Cross-examination as to previous statements in writing.- 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.

18. Under Section 145 of the Evidence Act when it is intended to contradict the witness by his previous statement reduced into writing, the attention of such witness must be called to those parts of it which are to be used for the purpose of contradicting him, before the writing can be used. While recording the deposition of a witness, it becomes the duty of the trial court to ensure that the part of the police statement with which it is intended to contradict the witness is brought to the notice of the witness in his cross-examination. The attention of witness is drawn to that part and this must reflect in his cross-examination by reproducing it. If the witness admits the part intended to contradict him, it stands proved and there is no need to further proof of contradiction and it will be read while appreciating the evidence. If he denies having made that part of the statement, his attention must be drawn to that statement and must be mentioned in the deposition. By this process the contradiction is merely brought on record, but it is yet to be proved. Thereafter when investigating officer is examined in the court, his attention should be drawn to the passage marked for the purpose of contradiction, it will then be proved in the deposition of the investigating officer who again by referring to the police statement will depose about the witness having made that statement. The process again involves referring to the police statement and culling out that part with which the maker of the statement was intended to be contradicted. If the witness was not confronted with that part of the statement with which the defence wanted to contradict him, then the court cannot suo moto make use of statements to police not proved in compliance with Section 145 of Evidence Act that is, by drawing attention to the parts intended for contradiction.

Supreme Court of India

V.K.Mishra & Anr vs State Of Uttarakhand & Anr on 28 July, 2015

Print Page

Whether prosecution can confront a witness on the basis of statement recorded U/S 162 of crpc?

The proviso is vital and important.  That clarifies that

any witness is called for the prosecution in the enquiry or the trial and
whose statement has been reduced into writing in terms of sub­section (1)

of Section 162, any part of his statement, if duly proved, may be used by

the accused and with the permission of the Court by the prosecution to

contradict such witness in the  manner provided by Section 145 of the

Indian Evidence Act, 1872 and when any part of such statement is so used,

any part thereof can also be used in re­examination of such witness, but for

the   purpose   only   of   explaining   the   matter   referred   to   in   his   cross-

examination. 

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.1309 OF 2013

Shri Pappu @ Suresh Budharmal Kalani


Versus

The State of Maharashtra       .. Respondent

Read full judgment here;click here

Print Page

Value of statement recorded by police u/s 162 of crpc when said witness is dead

  We have analysed the statement of the deceased Kalu made to the police under Section 161 Cr.P.C. We do not find that the statement of the deceased was in regard to the cause of his death, or as to any of the circumstances of the transaction which resulted in his death. The statement is in regard to the accused's involvement in the abduction of a boy and has no remote connection or reference to the death of the deceased and thus would not be admissible under Section 32 of the Evidence Act. The statement recorded by the police although could be proved as there would not be any bar under Section 162 Cr.P.C. for proof of such statement, but it would not be admissible under Section 32 of the Evidence Act, and thus it could not have been relied upon by the prosecution to prove the motive for commission of the crime by the accused appellant.

Supreme Court of India

Vinay D. Nagar vs State Of Rajasthan on 3 March, 2008

Print Page

Difference between the statement recorded under sec. 162 and sec. 164 of crpc

There is a difference between the statement recorded under sec. 162 and sec. 164. Statement under the provisions of sec. 162 is recorded by the police as a matter of preliminary investigation in to the case before filing charge sheet in the court of law, while statement u/s 164 is recorded by the Metropolitan Magistrate or Judicial Magistrate as a confession of a person (may or may not be during the course of trial), but like an examination-in-chief to be used in the course of a trial. While statement u/s 162 is not signed, statement u/s 164 is signed by the person making statement. Statement u/ 162 cannot be relied until proved beyond doubt, while a confession made u/s 164 has to be relied as is made before a Metropolitan Magistrate or Judicial Magistrate.

Print Page