CrPC Section 162 — Statements to police not to be signed: Use of statements in evidence

Summary

Sub-section (1) says that a statement made to a police officer during an investigation under this Chapter must not be signed by the person who made it if it is written down. At an inquiry or trial about the offence being investigated when the statement was made, the statement, any record of it, or any part of either cannot be used for any purpose except as provided in the section.

Under the proviso to sub-section (1), if a prosecution witness’s statement was written down, a part of it that is duly proved may be used by the accused to contradict that witness, in the manner set out in section 145 of the Indian Evidence Act. The prosecution may use it for that purpose only with the Court’s permission. If part of the statement is used, a part may also be used when the witness is re-examined, but only to explain something raised in cross-examination.

Sub-section (2) says the section does not apply to a statement covered by clause (1) of section 32 of the Indian Evidence Act, and does not affect section 27 of that Act.

The Explanation says that leaving out a fact or circumstance from a statement covered by sub-section (1) may amount to a contradiction if the omission is significant and relevant in context. Whether a particular omission amounts to a contradiction in its context is a question of fact.

Official Text

(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.

Sections referred to

• CrPC §27 — Jurisdiction in the case of juveniles
• IEA §32 — Cases in which statement of relevant fact by person who is dead or cannot be found, etc., is relevant
• IEA §145 — Cross-examination as to previous statements in writing

Related Judgments

• MUNNA PANDEY vs STATE OF BIHAR — Supreme Court of India (2023)
• RANBIR YADAV vs STATE OF BIHAR — Supreme Court of India (1995)
• KALI RAM vs STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH — Supreme Court of India (1973)
• TOFAN SINGH vs STATE OF TAMIL NADU — Supreme Court of India (2020)
• KHATRI & ORS. ETC. vs STATE OF BIHAR & ORS — Supreme Court of India (1981)
• Parvez Iqbal Tak vs State of Maharashtra — Bombay High Court (Mumbai Principal Seat) (2018)

Old <-> New Code Mapping

• BNSS §181 — Statements to police and use thereof