Pangi Jogi Naik And Anr. vs The State on 15 January, 1965
15. The learned defence counsel has drawn our attention to the above statement of the Investigating Officer and submits that P.W. 4 never made his above statement before the police and that the same being his improved version cannot be relied upon. With the utmost respect to the learned defence counsel, we are unable to accept his above contention. Because, unless the particular matter or point in the previous statement sought to be contradicted is placed before the witness for explanation, the previous statement cannot be used in evidence. In other words, the drawing of the attention of the witness to his previous statement sought to be contradicted and giving of all opportunities to him for explanation are compulsory. If any authority is to be cited on this point we may conveniently refer to the case of Pangi Jogi Naik v. State .