Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
A.BADHARUDEEN
Lawrence, S/O Varghese – Appellant
Versus
State Of Kerala, Represented By Its Prosecutor – Respondent
ORDER :
A. Badharudeen, J.
This Criminal Miscellaneous Case has been filed under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, to set aside Annexure.A2 order dated 27.02.2026 in Crl.M.P. No.3 of 2026 in S.C. No.1329/2014 on the files of the Court of the Additional Sessions Judge-VII, Thiruvananthapuram. The petitioners herein are accused Nos.1 to 4 and 6 to 8 in the above case.
2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Public Prosecutor, in detail. Perused the impugned order and relevant materials available.
3. In this case, the grievance canvased by the learned counsel for the petitioners is that, during cross- examination of PWs 1 to 3, when the defence counsel attempted to use previous statements of the said witnesses for the purpose of contradicting the witnesses by opting the process of cross-examination, the same was disallowed by the learned Sessions Judge for the reasons that “the contra statements claimed to have be contained in the previous statement recorded u/s.161 Cr.P.C. of this witness, when tried to put to the witness, the same was disallowed in view of the mandate of sec. 162 Cr.P.C.”.
4. On perusal of the reasons found by the learn
Statements recorded during a police investigation are admissible for the limited purpose of contradicting a witness during cross-examination to test their credibility, a process which cannot be prohi....
The admissibility of statements recorded under Section 164 of the Cr.P.C. as evidence and the conduct of the petitioner's counsel were central legal points established in the judgment.
An accused is entitled to cross-examine a defense witness who turns hostile by using previous statements recorded by the police, as the proviso to Section 162 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, read ....
Statements recorded under Section 164 of the Cr.P.C. are not substantive evidence and can only be used for contradiction or corroboration during cross-examination.
The court ruled that a witness cannot be recalled to confront them with subsequent statements for impeachment, as only previous statements are permissible under the Evidence Act.
The evidentiary value of a statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. is limited and is used as an aid during trial.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
