Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

54. Even though the statements recorded under Section 161 of CrPC cannot be used for any purposes in a trial due to the embargo placed under Section 162 CrPC, however, the power of the Trial Court under Section 165 Evidence Act is wide enough to put questions based on the statement under Section 161 CrPC to any witness or party at any stage to secure the ends of justice. For this, we may profitably refer to the judgment of this Court in Raghunandan v. State of U.P., (1974) 4 SCC 186, wherein, it was observed as follows:

“14. It is true that the ban, imposed by Section 162, Criminal Procedure Code, against the use of a statement of a witness recorded by the police during investigation, appears sweeping and wide. But, at the same time, we find that the powers of the Court, under Section 165 of the Evidence Act, to put any question to a witness, are also couched in very wide terms authorising the Judge “in order to discover or to obtain proper proof of relevant facts” to “ask any question he pleases, in any form, at any time, of any witness, or of the parties, about any fact relevant or irrelevant”. The first proviso to Section 165, Evidence Act, enacting that, despite the powers of the Court to put any question to a witness, the judgment must be based upon facts declared by the Act to be relevant, only serves to emphasize the width of the power of the Court to question a witness. The second proviso in this section preserves the privileges of witnesses to refuse to answer certain questions and prohibits only questions which would be considered improper under Sections 148 and 149 of the Evidence Act. Statements of witnesses made to the police during the investigation do not fall under any prohibited category mentioned in Section 165, Evidence Act. If Section 162 of the Criminal Procedure Code, was meant to be so wide in its sweep as the trial court thought it to be, it would make a further inroad upon the powers of the Judge to put questions under Section 165, Evidence Act. If that was the correct position, at least Section 162, Criminal Procedure Code, would have said so explicitly. Section 165 of the Evidence Act was already there when Section 162, Criminal Procedure Code was enacted.
15. It is certainly quite arguable that Section 162, Criminal Procedure Code, does amount to a prohibition against the use even by the Court of statements mentioned there.

Nevertheless, the purpose of the prohibition of Section 162 of the Criminal Procedure Code, being to prevent unfair use by the prosecution of statements made by witnesses to the police during the course of investigation, while the proviso is intended for the benefit of the defence, it could also be urged that, in order to secure the ends of justice, which all procedural law is meant to subserve, the prohibition, by taking into account its purpose and the mischief it was designed to prevent as well as its context, must be confined in its scope to the use by parties only to a proceeding of statements mentioned there.

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. We think that a narrow and restrictive construction put upon the prohibition in Section 162, Criminal Procedure Code, so as to confine the ambit of it to the use of statements by witnesses by parties only to a proceeding before the Court, would reconcile or harmonize the two provisions considered by us and also serve 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…..”