How to prove contradiction in evidence of witness in criminal case?
It becomes amply clear from the perusal of the
evidence of PW-10, I.O. in the case that the same has
not been done by the prosecution. Thus, the
statements of PW-2 marked from Section 161 of Cr.P.C.
in his cross-examination cannot be said to be proved
in the case to place reliance upon his evidence to
record the findings on the charge. The position of
law in this regard is well settled by this Court in
the case of V.K. Mishra v. State of Uttarakhand
(2015) 9 SCC 588. The
relevant paras are extracted hereinbelow:
“16. Section 162 CrPC 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) CrPC 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 to Section
162(1) CrPC. The statements under Section
161 CrPC 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 the
Evidence Act; (ii) the contradiction of such
witness also by the prosecution but with the
leave of the Court; and (iii) the reexamination
of the witness if necessary.
17. The court cannot suo motu make use of
statements to police not proved and ask
questions with reference to them which are
inconsistent with the testimony of the
witness in the court. The words in Section
162 CrPC “if duly proved” clearly show that
the record of the statement of witnesses
cannot be admitted in evidence straightaway
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*xamination
of the investigating officer.
The statement before the investigating
officer can be used for contradiction but
only after strict compliance with Section
145 of the Evidence Act that is by drawing
attention to the parts intended for
contradiction.
18. 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.’
19. 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*xamination.
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
motu make use of statements to police not
proved in compliance with Section 145 of the
Evidence Act that is, by drawing attention
to the parts intended for contradiction.”
(emphasis laid by this Court)
NonReportable
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 14 OF 2016
(Arising out of SLP (Crl.) No.703 of 2015)
KRISHAN CHANDER …APPELLANT
Versus
STATE OF DELHI …RESPONDENT
Citation;(2016) 3 SCC 108
V. GOPALA GOWDA, J.
Dated;January 6, 2016
https://www.lawweb.in/2016/05/how-to-prove-contradiction-in-evidence.html
