Police statments as evidence
Ranganath
(Querist) 03 September 2009
This query is : Resolved
Ld Counsels,
The ban imposed on using police statements as evidence is confined to the particular criminal trail and does not restrict its applicablity as evidence in other civil or criminal proceedings.
This is the law laid down by SC in its judgement in "Khatri and others etc. v. State of Bihar and others "Can any one give me the full judgment of this case.
(2)The ban imposed by Section 162 against the user of a statement recorded
by Police during investigation is a limited one, and is confined to an inquiry
or trial in respect of an offence then under investigation. Such a statement can
be used in collateral proceedings, e.g. in civil or writ proceedings subject to
relevancy.
Also pls clarify if the polcie statement can be used to initiate process u/s 340 CrPc for perjury.
thanks
PARTHA P BORBORA
(Expert) 06 September 2009
THE STATEMENT RECORDED BY POLICE US 161 IS NOT ADMISSIBLE AS EVIDENCE IN A COURT OF LAW. BUT IT IS USED FOR CONTRADICTION AND CORROBORATION. AS IT HAS NO VALUE AS EVIDENCE QUESTION OF USING IT AS EVIDENCE IN ANOTHER PROCEEDING DOES NOT ARISE AT ALL
Ranganath
(Querist) 06 September 2009
Ld counsel, But the above judgment states that it cannot be used as evidence in the related proceeding only. Below is the relevant extract from that judgment.
Similar arguments were raised as in the present case before me. With
reference to Section 4 Criminal Procedure Code the court observed that it was
apparent that the provisions of Criminal Procedure Code were applicable where an
offence under the Indian Penal Code or under any other law was being
investigated, inquired into, tried or otherwise dealt with. Some of the
principles laid in this judgment may be deduced as under :-
(1)The object of Section 162 Criminal Procedure Code is to protect the
accused both against overzealous police officers and untruthful witnesses.
(2)The ban imposed by Section 162 against the user of a statement recorded
by Police during investigation is a limited one, and is confined to an inquiry
or trial in respect of an offence then under investigation. Such a statement can
be used in collateral proceedings, e.g. in civil or writ proceedings subject to
relevancy.
(3)Similarly, the restriction regarding the use of police diary (case
diary) is intended to operate only in an inquiry or trial for an offence. A case
diary can be used in a civil or writ proceedings.
(4)The contention that the disclosure or production of case diary would
jeopardise the secrecy of the investigation and defeat the object was rejected.
(5)Sections 162 and 172 Criminal Procedure Code and Sections 122, 123, 124,
126 and 129 of the Evidence Act being exceptions to the legitimate demand for
reception of all relevant evidence in the interest of justice, they must be
strictly interpreted and not expansively construed, "for they are in derogation
of the search for truth". It would not, therefore, be right to extend the
prohibition of Section 172 Cr.P.C. to cases not falling strictly within the
terms of the section, by appealing to what may be regarded as the principle or
spirit of the section. That is a feeble reed which cannot sustain the argument
of the learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the State. It would in fact be
inconsistent with the constitutional commitment of this court to the rule of
law.
(6)Reports of police officers/C.I.D. as a result of investigation, the
correspondence between them and nothings on their tiles can be used in
collateral proceedings, e.g. civil or writ proceedings,
(7)Where the law imposes partial or limited ban or restriction on doing
something, the scope and applicability thereof must be strictly construed, and,
in no case, should be enlarged or extended by any process ol' analogy or on the
ground of secrecy or on the plea of interest of justice, or the like The fact
that investigation is pending or is already complete may, thus be immaterial.
