Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

43. The presiding officer of the Trial Court also remained a mute spectator. It was the duty of the presiding officer to put relevant questions to these witnesses in exercise of his powers under Section 165 of the Evidence Act. Section 162 of the CrPC does not prevent a Judge from looking into the record of the police investigation. Being a case of rape and murder and as the evidence was not free from doubt, the Trial Judge ought to have acquainted himself, in the interest of justice, with the important material and also with what the only important witnesses of the prosecution had said during the police investigation. Had he done so, he could without any impropriety have caught the discrepancies between the statements made by these witnesses to the investigating officer and their evidence at the trial, to be brought on the record by himself putting questions to the witnesses under Section 165 of the Evidence Act. There is, in our opinion, nothing in Section 162 CrPC to prevent a Trial Judge, as distinct from the prosecution or the defence, from putting to prosecution witnesses the questions otherwise permissible, if the justice obviously demands such a course. In the present case, we are strongly of the opinion that is what, in the interests of justice, the Trial Judge should have done but he did not look at the record of the police investigation until after the investigating officer had been examined and discharged as a witness. Even at this stage, the Trial Judge could have recalled the officer and other witnesses and questioned them in the manner provided by Section 165 of the Evidence Act. It is regrettable that he did not do so.

46. Section 162 CrPC says that no statement made by any person to a police officer in the course of an investigation, whether it be recorded or not, shall be used for the purpose save as provided in the first proviso to the Section. The first proviso says that when any witness, whose statement has been reduced into writing by the police in accordance with the provisions of the CrPC, is called for the prosecution in inquiry or trial the accused with the permission of the court may contradict the witnesses in the manner provided by Section 145 of the Evidence Act. It could be argued that, as the first part of Section 162 prohibits the use of the statement of a witness to a police officer for any purpose, other than that subsequently provided for in the proviso, and as the proviso says that the Court may permit the accused to contradict the witness with his previous statement, the Court has no power to do anything suo motu. In our opinion, this would be a misreading of the Section. The first part of Section 162 says that the statement made by a person to a police officer during investigation cannot be used for any purpose other than that mentioned in the proviso. We lay stress on the word “purpose”. The purpose mentioned in the proviso is the purpose of contradicting the evidence given in favour of the State by a prosecution witness in Court by the use of the previous statement made by such witness to the police officer. The purpose is to discredit the evidence given in favour of the prosecution by a witness for the State. The Section prohibits the use of the statement for any other purpose than this. It does not say that the statement can only be used at the request of the accused. The limitation or restriction imposed in the first part of Section 162 CrPC relates to this purpose for which the statement may be used; it does not relate to the procedure which may be adopted to effect this purpose. The proviso which sets out the limited purpose also mentions the way in which an accused person may contradict the witness with his previous statement made to the Police, but it does not in any way purport to take away the power that lies in the Court to look into any document, that it considers necessary to look into for the ends of justice and to put such questions to a witness as it may consider necessary to elicit the truth. We realise that the proviso would prevent the Court from using statements made by a person to a police officer in the course of investigation for any other purpose than that mentioned in the proviso but it does not in any other way affect the power that lies in the Court to look into documents or put questions to witnesses suo motu. It seems to us to be absurd to suggest that a Judge cannot put a question to a witness which a party may put. In this connection we would refer to the provisions of Section 165 of the Evidence Act, where the necessity of clothing the Judge with very wide powers to put questions to witnesses and to look into documents is recognised and provided for. This is what Section 165 of the Evidence Act says:— “Section 165. Judge’s power to put questions or order production.─ The Judge may, in order to discover or to obtain proper proof of relevant facts, ask any question he pleases, in any form, at any time, of any witness, or of the parties about any fact relevant or irrelevant; and may order the production of any document or thing; and neither the parties nor their agents shall be entitled to make any objection to any such question or order, nor, without the leave of the Court, to cross- examine any witness upon any answer given in reply to any such question: …”

“16. Section 162 CrPC bars use of statement of witnesses recorded by the police except for the limited purpose of contradiction of such witnesses as indicated there. The statement made by a witness before the police under Section 161(1) CrPC can be used only for the purpose of contradicting such witness on what he has stated at the trial as laid down in the proviso to Section 162(1) CrPC. The statements under Section 161 CrPC recorded during the investigation are not substantive pieces of evidence but can be used primarily for the limited purpose: (i) of contradicting such witness by an accused under Section 145 of the Evidence Act; (ii) the contradiction of such witness also by the prosecution but with the leave of the Court; and (iii) the re-examination of the witness if necessary.

51. This Court in Raghunandan v. State of U.P. reported in (1974) 4 SCC 186, it was observed:-(SCC p. 191, para 16) “16. We are inclined to accept the argument of the appellant that the language of Section 162, Criminal Procedure Code, though wide, is not explicit or specific enough to extend the prohibition to the use of the wide and special powers of the Court to question a witness, expressly and explicitly given by Section 165 of the Indian Evidence Act in order to secure the ends of justice. ….Therefore, we hold that Section 162, Criminal Procedure Code, does not impair the special powers of the Court under Section 165, Indian Evidence Act. …” (Emphasis supplied)