Source: Supreme Court

Why in News?

Recently, the Supreme Court (SC) in the matter of Munna Pandey v. State of Bihar, held that Section 162 of Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (CrPC) does not affect the power of the Court to look into documents or put questions to witnesses suo motu to contradict them.

Background

• In this case, the accused/appellant had come to the house of the victim who was a 10-year-old girl on the morning of 31st May 2015 and lured her to come to his house to watch TV and thereafter raped and murdered her.
• The SC noted that the case of all the witnesses before the police was that it was some other person (not the present accused/appellant) who had come to the house of the victim on the fateful day.
• Whereas in deposition before the Trial Court, the witnesses stated that it was the accused/appellant who was last seen with the victim.
• The accused/appellant was convicted and sentenced to death for the offences punishable under Section 376 and Section 302 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) and Section 4 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (POCSO) by the Trial Court.
• The accused/appellant filed an appeal in the High Court of Patna which was dismissed by the HC.
• Thereafter an appeal was filed before the SC.
• The order of the HC was set aside, and the matter was remitted back for reconsideration of the Death reference.

Court’s Observations

• The bench of Justices B R Gavai, J B Pardiwala and Prashant Kumar Mishra observed that nothing in Section 162 of the CrPC prevents a Trial Judge from looking into the papers of the chargesheet suo motu and using the statement of a person examined by the police recorded therein for the purpose of contradicting such person when he gives evidence in favor of the State as a prosecution witness. The Judge may do this, or he may make over the recorded statement to the lawyer for the accused so that he may use it for this purpose.
• The Court further held that in many sessions cases when an advocate is appointed by the Court appears and particularly when a junior advocate, who has not much experience of the procedure of the Court, has been appointed to conduct the defence of an accused person, it is the duty of the Presiding Judge to draw his attention to the statutory provisions of Section 145 of the Evidence Act.

Legal Provisions

Section 162, CrPC

• This Section contains provisions relating to the statements to police not to be signed and the use of statements in evidence. It states that -

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 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, 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.

• This Section provides for the limited use of statements and prohibits the court from using them to support statements made in court.

Case Laws

• In the Tahsildar Singh v. State of U.P. (1959) case, the SC held that a statement to the police could be used under Section 162 of CrPC only for the purpose of contradiction.
• In the Baleshwar Rai v. State of Bihar (1962) case, it was held that Section 162 of the CrPC only prohibits the proof of statements made during the course of the investigation. It does not prevent any statement from being authenticated during the course of an investigation.