Searching Case Laws & Precedent on Legal Query.....!
Analysing the retrieved Case Laws
Scanned Judgements…!
Searching Case Laws & Precedent on Legal Query.....!
Analysing the retrieved Case Laws
Scanned Judgements…!
Correction reports filed by Investigating Officers are generally considered hit by section 162 of Cr.P.C. when they are statements made to police during investigation, which makes them inadmissible as evidence in certain circumstances ["Inspector of Police VS Chalaki Bhaskar - Andhra Pradesh"], ["Hameed, S/o. Edinab vs State By Bidadi Police, Represented By Spp. - Karnataka"], ["PARTHIBAN vs STATE REP BY - Madras"].
The key criterion is whether the statement was made to a police officer during the investigation process. If so, it is typically protected by section 162 and cannot be exhibited as evidence, unless it falls under exceptions such as statements made outside the investigation or prior to registration of FIR ["Inspector of Police VS Chalaki Bhaskar - Andhra Pradesh"], ["Hameed, S/o. Edinab vs State By Bidadi Police, Represented By Spp. - Karnataka"], ["VALIBHAI OMARJI VS STATE - Gujarat"].
Several judgments emphasize that statements or reports obtained during investigation, including panchnamas, seizure mahazars, or statements by witnesses or accused, are hit by section 162 if they are made to police officers in the course of investigation ["Inspector of Police VS Chalaki Bhaskar - Andhra Pradesh"], ["VALIBHAI OMARJI VS STATE - Gujarat"], ["Borsing Timung VS State of Assam - Gauhati"], ["Ram Ratan VS State of Rajasthan - Rajasthan"].
There are specific instances where documents or reports, even if initially prepared by the investigating officer, are deemed inadmissible if they are made during investigation and are protected under section 162, unless they are independent or made outside the investigation context ["Inspector of Police VS Chalaki Bhaskar - Andhra Pradesh"], ["Jaladhar Sahu VS State - Orissa"], ["MIYABHAI PIRBHAI VS STATE - Gujarat"].
The courts have clarified that statements made by witnesses or accused persons in the presence of police officers during investigation are hit by section 162, but statements made outside the investigation process or prior to FIR registration may not be so protected ["VALIBHAI OMARJI VS STATE - Gujarat"], ["Jaladhar Sahu VS State - Orissa"].
Analysis and Conclusion:Filed correction reports or statements by investigating officers are generally considered hit by section 162 of the Cr.P.C. when they are made to police during investigation, rendering them inadmissible as evidence. Exceptions exist for statements made outside investigation or prior to FIR registration. The main point is that such reports or statements, when made during investigation, are protected under section 162 and cannot be exhibited as evidence unless they meet specific criteria or exceptions ["Inspector of Police VS Chalaki Bhaskar - Andhra Pradesh"], ["Hameed, S/o. Edinab vs State By Bidadi Police, Represented By Spp. - Karnataka"], ["PARTHIBAN vs STATE REP BY - Madras"].
In criminal trials, the admissibility of investigation documents can make or break a case. A common question arises: Does a correction report filed by an Investigating Officer (IO) get hit by Section 162 of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC)? This section bars the use of statements made to police during investigation, but does it apply to the IO's own reports? This blog post dives deep into the legal nuances, judicial precedents, and practical implications to clarify this issue.
Whether you're a lawyer preparing for trial, a law student, or someone navigating a criminal case, understanding this distinction is crucial. We'll explore how courts differentiate between IO's direct observations and witness-derived information, ensuring your evidence stands strong.
Section 162 CrPC aims to protect witnesses from police influence by prohibiting the use of their statements recorded during investigation at trial or inquiry, except for limited purposes like contradiction under Section 145 of the Indian Evidence Act. However, this bar does not extend to the IO's own observations or findings recorded in reports. Rameshwar Dayal VS State Of U. P. - 1978 0 Supreme(SC) 49
Key objective: Prevent reliance on potentially coerced or manipulated witness statements, while allowing primary evidence from the IO's firsthand account.
A correction report typically arises when an IO needs to amend initial findings, such as site measurements, inquest details, or observations from the crime scene. The critical factor is its source:
For instance, courts have clarified that inquest reports, site plans, or seizure memos contain two parts:
Documents like the inquest reports, seizure lists or the site plans consist of two parts one of which is admissible and the other is inadmissible. That part of such documents which is based on the actual observation of the witness at the spot being direct evidence in the case is clearly admissible under section 60 of the Evidence Act whereas the other part which is based on information given to the Investigating Officer or on the statement recorded by him in the course of investigation is inadmissible under S. 162 Cr. P. C. except for the limited purpose mentioned in that section. Rameshwar Dayal VS State Of U. P. - 1978 0 Supreme(SC) 49
This principle applies squarely to correction reports. If the correction stems from the IO's direct re-inspection or measurement, it's not hit by Section 162. Khatri VS State Of Bihar - 1981 0 Supreme(SC) 161
Indian courts have consistently upheld this distinction through landmark rulings:
IO's firsthand notes are primary evidence: Note No. 4 in Ex. Ka-18 is not a note which is based on the information given to the Investigating Officer by the witnesses but is a memo of what he himself found and observed at the spot. Khatri VS State Of Bihar - 1981 0 Supreme(SC) 161
Earliest observations admissible: The statement in the inquest report was made by Investigating Officer soon after the occurrence and was, therefore, the earliest statement regarding, a fact which he found and observed. Rameshwar Dayal VS State Of U. P. - 1978 0 Supreme(SC) 49
Not within Section 162's scope: Such a statement does not fall within the four corners of Section 162 Cr.P.C. Rameshwar Dayal VS State Of U. P. - 1978 0 Supreme(SC) 49
These precedents emphasize that reports like inquest memos or site plans based on IO's direct findings are best evidence and fully admissible. Baleshwar Rai alias Nepali Master VS State of Bihar - 1962 0 Supreme(SC) 183DAMODAR MISHRA VS STATE OF ORISSA - 1999 0 Supreme(Ori) 25
To illustrate:
| Type of Content | Admissibility | Reason ||-----------------|---------------|--------|| IO's direct observations (e.g., scene measurements in correction report) | Admissible | Primary evidence, not a 'statement to police' Rameshwar Dayal VS State Of U. P. - 1978 0 Supreme(SC) 49 | | Witness-derived info (e.g., notes from witness instructions) | Inadmissible (except contradiction) | Hit by Section 162 CrPC Khatri VS State Of Bihar - 1981 0 Supreme(SC) 161 |
In one case, a sketch map prepared by a Sub-Inspector was deemed inadmissible under Section 162 because it incorporated witness statements or information received by the IO. Tori Singh VS State Of U. P. - 1961 Supreme(SC) 307
Similarly, maps containing statements of witnesses or of information received by the investigating officer preparing the map from other persons are improper. Tori Singh VS State Of U. P. - 1961 Supreme(SC) 307
Applying this to correction reports: If filed to correct the IO's own earlier observations (e.g., spot measurements or scene findings), it remains not hit by Section 162 and serves as substantive evidence. However, if it incorporates or relies on witness statements recorded during investigation, that portion becomes inadmissible.
Courts reinforce: The notes in question which are in the nature of a statement recorded by the Police Officer in the course of investigation would not be admissible. Rameshwar Dayal VS State Of U. P. - 1978 0 Supreme(SC) 49DAMODAR MISHRA VS STATE OF ORISSA - 1999 0 Supreme(Ori) 25
Other judgments provide broader context:
Panchanamas and pre-offence statements: Earlier panchanamas not hit by Section 162 if not during investigation. Narasimham D. V. v. State - 1969 Supreme(Online)(AP) 14
Counter-complaints: A complaint filed by the accused voluntarily, even during investigation, may not qualify as a 'statement' under Section 162 if not recorded as such. RABARI KHIMA GANDA VS STATE - 1978 Supreme(Guj) 136KOLI MADHA JINA VS STATE - 1984 Supreme(Guj) 127
Procedural irregularities: Post-investigation FIRs or reports can be hit by Section 162 proviso, underscoring timing. Parthiban VS State Rep. by Inspector of Police, CB-CID - 2018 Supreme(Mad) 2538
These cases highlight the need to scrutinize the report's basis, aligning with the core principle for correction reports.
Disclaimer: This post provides general legal information based on judicial precedents and is not specific legal advice. Consult a qualified lawyer for case-specific guidance. Laws and interpretations may vary by jurisdiction and facts.
References: All citations from provided legal documents including Rameshwar Dayal VS State Of U. P. - 1978 0 Supreme(SC) 49, Khatri VS State Of Bihar - 1981 0 Supreme(SC) 161, Baleshwar Rai alias Nepali Master VS State of Bihar - 1962 0 Supreme(SC) 183, DAMODAR MISHRA VS STATE OF ORISSA - 1999 0 Supreme(Ori) 25, Tori Singh VS State Of U. P. - 1961 Supreme(SC) 307, Narasimham D. V. v. State - 1969 Supreme(Online)(AP) 14, RABARI KHIMA GANDA VS STATE - 1978 Supreme(Guj) 136, KOLI MADHA JINA VS STATE - 1984 Supreme(Guj) 127, Suresh Rajbongshi and ors VS State of Assam - 2012 Supreme(Gau) 94.
#CrPC162, #InvestigatingOfficer, #LegalAdmissibility
We are now concerned with the next information filed by PW.1. The question now is whether it could be exhibited in evidence by prosecution or not. In the opinion of the learned trial judge, it is hit by sections 161 and 162 CrPC and therefore it could not be exhibited in evidence. ... The proposed document is after it and therefore it was hit by sections 161 and 162 CrPC and therefore it could not be exhibited as evidence. 5. Aggrieved by that refusal, the prosecution preferred this revision. ... It is ....
It is very clear that once the Investigating Officer goes to spot and verify the spot and knew that cognizable offence has taken place and he has received the information and the case is not registered, the same is hit by Section 162 of Cr.P.C. and the same is ignored by both the Courts. ... The duty of the Magistrate under Section 207 does not empower Magistrate to withhold any “document” submitted by Investigating Officer along with police report, unless it is volum....
Proceeding on this hypothesis it was held that the panchanamas which Were conducted earlier would not fall under S.162 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and any statement made to the Police Officer prior to the offence would not be hit by S.162, Cr. P. C. ... Sharma that any statement made by the accused during the course of investigation was hit by S.162, Cr. P. C. ... As a result of foregoing discussion, we hold that the trial Judge was not justified in drawing an inference against t....
It can be regarded as a statement made by the Panch witness to the police officer and if so it would be hit by sec. 162 Cri. Pro. Code. If the Panchnama was not made during the course of the investigation. then it would not be hit by sec. 162 Cri. Pro. Code. ... Barot had to concede that in that judgment it has nowhere been laid down that a Panchnama made in a corruption case is necessarily a statement communicated to a police officer and therefore is hit by sec. #HL_....
Sec. 162 is aimed at statements recorded by a police officer while investigating into an offence. This is clear from the opening words of sec. 162. They speak only of statements made to a police officer during the course of investigation. ... It contains a statement made to a police officer investigating the offence. ... A clever investigating officer may as well get it recorded as a counter-complaint. ... R. 147) laid down that in ....
Tirmiji was the investigating officer in this case. ... These observations go to show that the report i. e. counter-complaint given by the accused will not be hit by sec. 25 of the Evidence Act provided it does not amount to a confession. ... C. 1850 at page 1953 in paragraph 15 the Supreme Court has observed as follows :" The report is not a confession of the appellant. It is not a statement made to a police officer during the course of investigation. ... W. 15 was the inves....
evidence of the investigating officer, it would manifestly offend against section 162 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. ... On the basis of this report, FIR No. 153/92 came to be registered. The Investigating Officer started investigation. ... Learned counsel for the appellants has also urged that the site plan prepared by the Investigating Officer has not legal evidenciary value, for the reason that it has been recorded in the memo of site plan th....
of the investigating officer, it would manifestly offend against S. 162 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. ... King-Emperor, AIR 1926 Cal 550, where it was observed that placing of maps before the jury containing statements of witnesses or of information received by the investigating officer preparing the map from other persons was improper, and that the investigating officer who made a map in a criminal case ... He also made a statement before the investiga....
In the case as it certainly would be a statement made during the investigation of a case and hit by Section 162, Cr.P.C. ... Therefore, admittedly before registering the F.I.R. - Ex.P.10, the entire investigation, seizure were over and it is hit by the proviso under section 162 of Cr.P.C. which reads as follows:- ... “162. ... In the presence of witnesses, PW-3 the Village Administrative Officer seized the same. He also prepared seizure mahazar Ex.P.2 and the search list Ex.P3 and subm....
Kundu the writ petitioner prayed for correction of his age in 1992 whereas he had been superannuated on 1994. As it was during the last 5 years of service as such the said application of the writ petitioner was hit by the said circular dated June 20, 1987. ... ... ( 6 ) 1993, VOLUME II, SUPREME COURT CASES, PAGE 162 : In this case the Supreme Court held that the application for correction of date of birth entered in the service book in 1956, for the first time made in 1991, was hopelessly belated. ... It was also urged ....
The Investigating Officer had also recorded a finding that since all the documents pertaining to the alleged forgery in original are in possession of Economic Offence Wing where the investigation is in progress, as such filing of charge-sheet in the absence of documentary evidence is unwarranted. Resultantly, final report was filed by the earlier Investigating Officer.
There may be some variations in the Final Report filed by the Investigating Officer. This is a case based on the evidence of eye witnesses, injured witnesses and they were consistent and cogent in their evidence as regards the manner of assault and participation of A-2 and A-4 in the occurrence.
Thereafter, another status report was filed by ACP, P.S. Dabri wherein apart from the facts mentioned in the status report by the I.O., it was stated that concerned SHO, P.S. Palam Village after taking due permission from Senior Officers on telephone arrested the petitioner and her husband in case FIR No.325/12, P.S. Palam Village. 7. A status report was filed by the Investigating Officer.
The said statement recorded by the Investigating Officer is hit by section 25 of the Evidence Act. In the said statements, the appellants had admitted that they, along with Sri Sarat Sekharu had killed the deceased and buried the dead body. However, as provided by section 27 of the Evidence Act, when any fact is deposed to as discovered in consequence of information received from a person accused of any offence, in the custody of a police officer, so much of such information, whether it amounts to a confession or not, as relates distinctly to the fact thereby discovered, ma....
The said statement recorded by the Investigating Officer is hit by section 25 of the Evidence Act. However, as provided by Section 27 of the Evidence Act, when any fact is deposed to as discovered in consequence of information received from a person accused of any offence, in the custody of a police officer, so much of such information, whether it amounts to a confession or not, as relates distinctly to the fact thereby discovered, may be proved. Section 25 of the Evidence Act provides that no confession made to a police officer, shall be proved against a person accused....
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
