08.01.2014 Views

Appreciation of Evidence in Sessions Cases - Justice D.Murugesan

Appreciation of Evidence in Sessions Cases - Justice D.Murugesan

Appreciation of Evidence in Sessions Cases - Justice D.Murugesan

SHOW MORE
SHOW LESS

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

YUMPU automatically turns print PDFs into web optimized ePapers that Google loves.

(3). EVIDENTIARY VALUE OF STATEMENTS RECORDED<br />

UNDER SECTIONS 161 and 164 OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE CODE:<br />

(a). Evidentiary Value:-<br />

Section 161 <strong>of</strong> Cr.P.C. – Statement recorded under S.161 Cr.P.C. shall not be used for any purpose<br />

except to contradict a witness <strong>in</strong> the manner prescribed <strong>in</strong> the proviso to Section 162 (1) – Further the First<br />

Information Report is not a substantial piece <strong>of</strong> evidence – Baldev S<strong>in</strong>gh vs. State <strong>of</strong> Punjab (1990 (4)<br />

SCC 692 = AIR 1991 SC 31).<br />

In Rajendra s<strong>in</strong>gh vs. State <strong>of</strong> U.P – (2007) 7 SCC 378 the Hon’ble Apex Court has held that,<br />

“A statement under Section 161 CrPC is not a substantive piece <strong>of</strong> evidence. In view <strong>of</strong> the<br />

provision to Section 162 (1) CrPC, the said statement can be used only for the limited purpose <strong>of</strong><br />

contradict<strong>in</strong>g the maker there<strong>of</strong> <strong>in</strong> the manner laid down <strong>in</strong> the said proviso. Therefore, the High<br />

Court committed a manifest error <strong>of</strong> law <strong>in</strong> rely<strong>in</strong>g upon wholly <strong>in</strong>admissible evidence <strong>in</strong> record<strong>in</strong>g<br />

a f<strong>in</strong>d<strong>in</strong>g that Respondent 2 could not have been present at the scene <strong>of</strong> commission <strong>of</strong> the<br />

crime.”<br />

Section 164 Cr.P.C. Statement – It can be used for corroboration or contradiction. In Sunil Kumar<br />

and others vs. State <strong>of</strong> M.P. reported <strong>in</strong> AIR 1997 SC 940 the Hon’ble Apex Court has held that,<br />

“20. .... This conclusion <strong>of</strong> ours, however, does not <strong>in</strong> any way affect the merits <strong>of</strong> the<br />

prosecution case for we f<strong>in</strong>d that immediately after PW 1 was taken to the hospital his statement<br />

was recorded as a dy<strong>in</strong>g declaration which, consequent upon survival, is to be treated only as a<br />

statement recorded under Section 164 CrPC and can be used for corroboration or contradiction.<br />

....”<br />

(b). Confrontation <strong>of</strong> Statement:-<br />

Sections 161 and 162 <strong>of</strong> Crim<strong>in</strong>al Procedure Code – The Witness not confronted with the statement<br />

– The Court cannot subsequently use the statement even for draw<strong>in</strong>g any adverse impression aga<strong>in</strong>st the<br />

witness – Dandu Lakshmi Reddi vs. State <strong>of</strong> A.P. (AIR 1999 SC 3255).<br />

(c). Sign<strong>in</strong>g <strong>of</strong> Statement:-<br />

Sections 161 and 162 – Statement <strong>of</strong> witness – If thumb impression or signature obta<strong>in</strong>ed – Such<br />

statements are unreliable – Gurnam Kaur vs. Bakshish S<strong>in</strong>gh and others – AIR 1981 SC 631.<br />

Section 161 – Sign<strong>in</strong>g <strong>of</strong> statement – It merely puts the Court on caution and may necessitate <strong>in</strong><br />

depth scrut<strong>in</strong>y <strong>of</strong> the evidence, but the evidence on this account cannot be rejected outright – State <strong>of</strong> U.P<br />

vs. M.K. Anthony – AIR 1985 SC 48.<br />

8

Hooray! Your file is uploaded and ready to be published.

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!