Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

Section 145 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 which is under Chapter X, dealing with cross-examination as to previous statements in writing, states that a witness may be cross-examined as to previous statements made by him in writing or reduced into writing, and relevant to matters in question, without such writing being shown to him, or being proved; but, if it is intended to contradict him by the writing, his attention must, before the writing can be proved, be called to those parts of it which are to be used for the purpose of contradicting him. What clearly emerges from reading of Sections 161 and 162 CrPC is that the statements that may be reduced into writing are not per se admissible in evidence. The same can, however, be used for contradicting a witness by the prosecution. Section 145 of the Indian Evidence Act reiterates the same position and further provides the procedure for contradicting the said witness. Once, statements made by witnesses reduced into writing under Section 161 are not admissible in evidence and can be used only for the purpose of contradicting them by the prosecution, it can well be said that merely because a witness has been declared hostile, it cannot be said that he has been won over. Such statements are not signed by the concerned witness. There is no authenticity that the contents of such statements are true, and for that precise reason, the same are not admissible in evidence. In the first blush, the contention raised by the Learned Counsel representing the applicant appears to be attractive, and if perhaps, it was a case where the departmental proceedings might have commenced after acquittal of the applicant and there were no intervening circumstances, it could well be said that the criminal court merely declaring the witnesses to be hostile would not automatically mean that they had been won over. In the facts and circumstances of the present case, however, we find that the statements of material witnesses, and in particular, Krishan Singh (PW-5) and ASI Harpal Singh (PW-3), were recorded by the enquiry officer on 18.4.2000. Concededly, these witnesses deposed in tune with the case of the department and clearly identified the applicant. These statements have been signed by them. The applicant was given opportunity to cross examine and he availed the said opportunity. These statements were recorded by an officer in discharge of his duties, the existence of which can be presumed under provisions contained in Section 114(e) of the Evidence Act. What thus transpires from the facts of the present case is that Krishan Singh and Harpal Singh clearly blamed the applicant and proved the allegations contained in the charge framed against him far before their statements were recorded by the criminal court, wherein, of course, they did not identify the applicant. Their statements made before the criminal court were thus not in tune with the statements made by them before the enquiry officer. In our considered view, whereas, it may not be possible to say with definite precision that they had been won over simply because they resiled from their earlier statements under Section 161 CrPC, which are unsigned and inadmissible evidence, but the same would not be true if they may resile from their statements recorded by an officer in discharge of his official duties, and which are signed by them. In such an event, it can well be said that they have been won over. It will be well nigh impossible, or at least, very difficult, to prove that the applicant has indeed either because of pressure exerted by him or inducement, had won over the witnesses. Such finding has to be returned on the basis of facts and circumstances of each case. In our considered view, if a witness has resiled from his earlier statement, which is proved to have been made by him, it can well be said that he has been won over.