by Police - Bureau of Police Research and Development
by Police - Bureau of Police Research and Development
by Police - Bureau of Police Research and Development
Create successful ePaper yourself
Turn your PDF publications into a flip-book with our unique Google optimized e-Paper software.
The Indian <strong>Police</strong> Journalwriting as aforesaid, any part <strong>of</strong> his statement, if duly proved,may be used <strong>by</strong> the accused, <strong>and</strong> with the permission <strong>of</strong> thecourt, <strong>by</strong> the prosecution, to contradict such witness in thewhen any part <strong>of</strong> such statement is so used, any part there<strong>of</strong> mayalso be used in the re-examination <strong>of</strong> such witness, but for thepurpose only <strong>of</strong> explaining any matter referred to in his crossexamination.”Admissibility for statement recorded u/s 161 Cr.P.C. is provided inproviso to Sec.162(1) Cr.P.C. only for the purpose <strong>of</strong> contradiction<strong>of</strong> prosecution witness, if he is maker <strong>of</strong> statement, <strong>by</strong> defence side<strong>and</strong> for explaining contradiction <strong>by</strong> prosecution side. It is not usingterm for cross-examination. It creates confusion whether statementmay be used for cross-examination <strong>and</strong> contradiction, both or onlyfor contradiction. This controversy was settled <strong>by</strong> the Supreme Courtin case <strong>of</strong> Tahsildar Singh v. State <strong>of</strong> U.P. The matter was decided <strong>by</strong>divided opinion <strong>of</strong> Judges. Minority decision was given <strong>by</strong> Immam <strong>and</strong>Hidayatullah, JJ. And, they were <strong>of</strong> opinion that Sec.145 <strong>of</strong> EvidenceAct consists <strong>of</strong> one coherent provision, therefore for contradictionalways it is required that witness be cross-examined, <strong>and</strong> thenafter contradicted therefore statement may be used, both for crossexamination<strong>and</strong> contradiction. Majority decision was given <strong>by</strong> Sinha,Kapur, Sarkar <strong>and</strong> Subba Rao, JJ. They were <strong>of</strong> opinion that Sec.162<strong>of</strong> Cr.P.C. permits use <strong>of</strong> statement recorded u/s 161 Cr.P.C. only forcontradiction. Contradiction is possible without cross-examination.In Sec.145 <strong>of</strong> Evidence Act, there are two parts: one is, referring tocross-examination <strong>and</strong> the second is, referring to contradiction. Bothare independent, contradiction is possible without cross-examination.Only the thing is that contradiction is made at the stage <strong>of</strong> crossexamination.For statement recorded under Sec.161 Cr.P.C., rule <strong>of</strong>evidence has been completely changed. Statement recorded underSec.161 is only admissible for contradiction <strong>of</strong> prosecution witnessduring trial. Contradiction is between what a person states before the <strong>of</strong> opinion that if cross-examination is permitted, then situation maybecome that before the court parties may start to show that what person objectives <strong>of</strong> Sec.162, therefore, cross-examination <strong>of</strong> prosecutionJanuary - March, 2013131
Change language