Document Fragment View
Fragment Information
Showing contexts for: unsigned statement in Azeez @ Abdulazeez vs State Of KeralaMatching Fragments
67. We notice a decision by a learned Single Judge in Mohanan v. State of Kerala (1998(1) KLT 805) in the context of a case under Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985. With reference to a contradiction that can be elicited through a witness, who does not support the case of prosecution revealed through his statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C., the learned Single Judge made the following observations:
"............ The Sessions Judge is wrong in marking the portion of that statement of the witness examined under S.161 Crl.P.C. The statement recorded under S.161 Crl.PC is an unsigned one. When the witness who has given such statement during the investigation is not supporting the same while he is in the witness box, the contradiction can be elicited through him, as provided under S.145 of the Indian Evidence Act and the same can be Crl.Appeal Nos.866 of 2009, 867 of 2009, 880 of 2009, 888 of 2009, 1240 of 2009 recorded in his deposition sheet. Such contradiction cannot be marked as an exhibit as per the principle laid down by the Madras High Court in an earlier case as well as by me as Judge of this Court in a recent judgment. The statement recorded under S.161 Cr.P.C. of a witness can be used by the accused for the purpose of contradiction, as I have stated above, under S.145 and taken by the prosecution for corroboration provided under S.157 of the Indian Evidence Act. The contradiction can also be elicited as per the proviso to S.162 Crl.P.C. .........."