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 prohibited by the trial court under the pretext of procedural restrictions.

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 learned Sessions Judge to disallow the use of previous statements recorded under Section 161 of Cr.P.C. holding the view that the said procedure is not permitted under Section 162 of Cr.P.C, it is noticeable that the learned Sessions Judge failed to understand what is intended by Section 162 of Cr.P.C. and what is the use of statements recorded under Section 161 of Cr.P.C. by an Investigating Officer during investigation. It is the undisputed law that, a statement recorded under Section 161 of Cr.P.C. is not evidence by itself and the use of the same during evidence is limited within the mandate of Section 162 of Cr.P.C. The limited purpose is well settled. That is to say, use of statements recorded under Section 161 of Cr.P.C./previous statements recorded by an Investigating Officer has been provided in Section 162 of Cr.P.C. and the use is limited to contradict the witness in the manner provided under Section 145 of the Indian Evidence Act. Therefore, use of a statement recorded under Section 161 of Cr.P.C. to contradict a witness is not at all prohibited by Section 162 of Cr.P.C. and the restriction is its use as evidence in a case to prove a fact in issue. Therefore, the reasons stated by the learned Sessions Judge to disallow the use of previous statements/statements recorded under Section 161 of Cr.P.C. for the purpose of contradicting a witness is not permitted under Section 162 of Cr.P.C. is absolutely wrong and the same would not sustain in the eye of law.

5. In fact, it is the absolute right of the accused to use previous statements during cross-examination of the maker of the same for the purpose contradicting the maker to shake the veracity of the evidence spoken by him and to make it as untrustworthy of credit, and the same is the main purpose of cross-examination as well. Therefore, the reasons for disallowing use of previous statement for the purpose of contradicting the witnesses during cross- examination found to be illegal and the order would require interference.

6. Accordingly, this Crl.M.C. stands allowed with direction to the learned Sessions Judge to recall PWs 1 to 3 and permit the petitioners’ counsel to cross-examine them by using previous statement, in tune with the mandate of Section 148 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 [corresponding to Section 145 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872]. The learned Sessions Judge is also directed to expedite the trial by allowing the petitioners to cross- examine PWs 1 to 3, as indicated above, within a period of three weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order. For this purpose, the petitioners are directed to co-operate with the Court, without fail.

Registry is directed to forward a copy of this order to the Sessions Court, forthwith, for information and further steps.