Document Fragment View
Matching Fragments
24. I find a considerable force in the submission made by the Ld. Addl.PP in this regard. During the investigation, the law recognizes recording of statements only in three forms. The first is the statement of the complainant or the witness or the victim or the complainant in law, as it is called sometimes in technical sense of the term, on the basis of which FIR is registered and machinery of the criminal law is set into motion and the said statement is required under the law to be signed by the person making the same. Second manner is by way of Section 161 Cr.PC and it is not required to be signed by the person making it under the law and as per command of Section 162 Cr.PC, it is to be used only for confronting a witness in his/her cross examination and not for corroborating the deposition of the witness before the court. Third form of statement is one which is recorded by a Magistrate u/s 164 Cr.PC when the Oath may be administered to the person making it and it may be required to be signed by the said person. But again, as per command of Section 162 Cr.PC, the said statement u/s 164 Cr.PC is not on any higher footing because the same can also be used only for confrontation and not for corroboration. From this point of view, I failed to understand as to how and under which provision of law Ex.PW7/E was got signed from PW6 by the IO of the case as Ex.PW7/E was neither a statement, on the basis of which the FIR was registered, nor it was statement recorded u/s 164 Cr.PC and if it was a statement u/s 161 Cr.PC, as to why it was got signed from the PW6, particularly in view of the fact that a separate statement, unsigned, u/s 161 Cr.PC of PW6 is on the judicial record and admittedly recorded by the said IO.