Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

9. P. W. 1 is certainly an interested witness inasmuch as he is seriously prejudiced by the alleged acts of the revision petitioners. His evidence must be subjected to careful and cautious scrutiny and accepted only to the extent it receives corroboration and the Court is satisfied that he is speaking the truth. Such corroboration is provided only by P. Ws. 2 and 3. The two Courts below proceeded on the basis that they are in-dependant witnesses. This is seriously challenged by the revision petitioners. P. W. 2 denies that she is a cook working in the house of P. W. 1, P. W. 3 denies that he is the car driver of P. W. 1. Their denial is sought to be falsified on the basis of certain contradictions brought out with reference to their statements recorded under Section 161 of the Code by the Sub-Inspector of Police, D.W. 1 in the course of his investigation into Crime No. 77 of 1977, relating to the same occurrence. The lower Court brushed aside these contradictions on the ground that the contradictions can be characterised as unsigned statements. The appellate Court brushed aside these contradictions on the ground that they will be important only if the defence adduced clinching evidence regarding defence version. These views are wholly unsustainable.

12. The trial Court declined to attach any weight to the contradictions brought out with reference to the case diary statements on the ground that they are unsigned statements. This reasoning cannot be supported at all. Section 162(1) of the Code contains a mandate to an Investigating Police Officer not to get the signature of the person questioned when his statement is reduced into writing. In other words, every valid and lawful case diary statement recorded under Section 161 of the Code, could only be an 'unsigned statement. If unsigned statements as previous statements can have no value in the eye of law, it must necessarily follow that no case diary statement recorded under Section 161 of the Code can have any value at all. But the proviso to Section 162(1) as well as Section 162(2) specifically provide for use of such a statement for certain specific purposes. It cannot be imagined that the law provided for use of these statements even, though such statements cannot have any value. Weight to be attached to a contradiction does not depend on the question whether the previous statement; is signed or not.

13. Section 145 of the Indian Evidence Act premits cross-examination of witness as to previous statements made by him in writing or reduced to writing and relevant to matters in question, without such writing being shown to him of being proved. The second part of Section 14S of the Evidence Act states that if it is intended to contradict the witness by the writing his attention must, before the writing can be proved, to be called to those parts of it which are to be used for the purpose of contradicting him. A reading of Section 145 of the Evidence Act shows that it permits contradiction of witnesses with reference to a statement made by him in writing or reduced into writing. Section 145 does not require any such statement must be signed by him. In other words, the enabling power as regards Section 145 extends to statement in writing whether it is signed or not. Section 155 permits the credit of a witness to be impeached in certain ways. Clause (3) of Section 155 permits credit of a witness being impeached by proof of "former statement" inconsistent with any part of his evidence which is liable to be contradicted. It does not appear that the former statement must be signed in order that it may fall under the scope of Section 155(3) of the Indian Evidence Act. Thus, it is clear that the trial court was in error in brushing aside the case diary contradictions on the ground that they are unsigned statements.