Nurul Miah And Ors. vs State Of Tripura on 20 February, 2004
24. What emerges from the above discussion is that notwithstanding the fact that Ext. P/1 has been treated as the FIR, the nomenclature so used was misconceived under the law and the same was nothing, but a statement made by PW-1 to the police during the course of investigation of the case. The utility of the previous statement of a prosecution witness is settled by a catena of judicial decisions. A statement recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C is not a substantive piece of evidence and the same can be used only for the purpose of contradiction and not for corroboration. (See Som Nath v. Union of India report in 1971 Cr.L.J. 142; Sat Paul v. Delhi Administration, reported in 1976 Cr.L.J. 295; Chinnamal v. State of Tamil Nadu, reported in (1971) 1 SCC 145; Bulu Das v. State of Bihar, reported in (1998) 8 SCC 130 and Abdul Kalam v. State of Tripura, reported in 2001 (3) GLT 35.