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…!
The law permits recording of multiple statements under Section 161 and 164 if justified, but their admissibility and evidentiary value depend on proper procedure and the purpose for which they are used ["PERVAIZE AKHTAR ALIAS PARVEENA AKHTER vs UT OF J AND K INCHARGE POLICE STATION BILLAWAR KATHUA - Jammu and Kashmir"] ["Tara Chand Rampal v. State - Delhi"].
Analysis and Conclusion:
In criminal trials across India, statements recorded under Section 161 of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC) play a pivotal role during investigations. But what is the relevancy of a 161 statement? Are they admissible as primary evidence, or do they serve a more limited purpose? This question often arises for lawyers, accused persons, witnesses, and even the general public navigating legal proceedings. Understanding their scope is crucial to avoid missteps in court.
This blog post breaks down the legal framework, drawing from established precedents and key cases. We'll explore how these statements are used—or restricted—in trials, bail hearings, and beyond. Note: This is general information based on legal principles and should not be taken as specific legal advice. Consult a qualified lawyer for your case.
Section 161 CrPC empowers police officers to examine oral evidence from witnesses and accused persons during investigations. These statements are typically recorded in writing and signed by the maker, but they are not given on oath and occur outside formal court settings.
Key procedural note: Recording must comply with safeguards, such as avoiding joint statements of multiple witnesses under Section 161(3), though violations may impact evidentiary value rather than render them wholly inadmissible Tilkeshwar Singh VS State Of Bihar - 1955 0 Supreme(SC) 114.
Statements under Section 161 CrPC are generally not substantive evidence. They cannot prove facts in themselves but are relevant for limited purposes like contradiction or impeachment of witnessesState of N. C. T. of Delhi VS Mukesh - 2013 0 Supreme(SC) 1207.
As held in judicial analysis, Statements under Section 161 Cr.P.C. are not substantive evidence but are relevant for contradiction and impeachment State of N. C. T. of Delhi VS Mukesh - 2013 0 Supreme(SC) 1207.
Witness statements shine in challenging trial testimony. During cross-examination, prior inconsistencies can be highlighted to impeach credibility, per the Indian Evidence Act State of N. C. T. of Delhi VS Mukesh - 2013 0 Supreme(SC) 1207.
For instance, if a witness resiles from their earlier account, the defense can confront them with the 161 statement. However, it remains non-substantive: It was unequivocally held that ‘a statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. is not a substantive piece of evidence’ Renuka Prasad VS State Represented by Assistant Superintendent of Police - 2025 5 Supreme 176.
In a murder conspiracy case, courts rejected reliance on IOs narrating 161 statements as prosecution story, deeming them wholly inadmissible under Section 162 of Cr.P.C. Mere mention by police doesn't confer credibility unless witnesses affirm it in court Renuka Prasad VS State Represented by Assistant Superintendent of Police - 2025 5 Supreme 176. Similarly, in perjury challenges, Based on 161 statement, the ingredients of Section 193 of IPC are not at all made out. The learned Sessions Judge clearly erred in preferring a complaint for perjury in absence of prima facie proof. 161 statement does not bind the petitioner SHRI VINOD KUMAR P NAIR vs STATE OF KARNATAKA - 2025 Supreme(Online)(Kar) 41358.
Accused statements differ markedly. They are often confessional or self-incriminating, protected under Sections 24, 25, and 26 of the Evidence Act. Generally inadmissible as guilt proof unless qualifying under Section 30 Evidence Act—relevant, proved, in joint trials implicating co-accused State Bank Of Bikaner And Jaipur VS Srinathgupta - 1996 7 Supreme 729P. Krishna Mohan Reddy VS State of Andhra Pradesh - 2025 0 Supreme(SC) 865.
Statements of accused persons under Section 161 Cr.P.C. are of a different legal nature from those of witnesses and are subject to strict evidentiary rules, especially concerning confessions and admissions State Bank Of Bikaner And Jaipur VS Srinathgupta - 1996 7 Supreme 729.
Admissibility hinges on:- Lawful recording.- Inculpatory vs. exculpatory nature.- Evidence Act compliance State Bank Of Bikaner And Jaipur VS Srinathgupta - 1996 7 Supreme 729P. Krishna Mohan Reddy VS State of Andhra Pradesh - 2025 0 Supreme(SC) 865.
Joint or multiple recordings breaching procedure affect value but don't auto-exclude for contradiction Tilkeshwar Singh VS State Of Bihar - 1955 0 Supreme(SC) 114. Unlawful coercion voids confessional parts under Sections 24-26 Evidence Act.
In one case, a victim's 161 statement sufficed prima facie to alter charges under Section 216 CrPC, emphasizing court powers despite investigative flaws Om Prakash @ Jani VS State of U. P. - 2023 Supreme(All) 1622.
In bail, 161 statements assess prima facie cases or witness credibility, not guilt substantively State Bank Of Bikaner And Jaipur VS Srinathgupta - 1996 7 Supreme 729Amar Singh VS Union of India - 2011 4 Supreme 262. Courts balance against safeguards.
Trial use mirrors this: contradiction only, no direct proof. A dowry death appeal highlighted, The statement recorded under Section 161 of the Cr. P. C can be used for the purposes of contradicting the person who made the statement and not for corroborating him or any other witness RAM LAKHAN MANDAL VS STATE OF BIHAR - 2004 Supreme(Jhk) 90.
Rarely, they transcend limits:- Dying declarations: If relating to death cause, properly recorded (even delayed), with fit mental state PRADEEP BISOI @ RANJIT BISOI VS STATE OF ODISHA - 2019 2 Supreme 422.- Perjury/Disciplinary: Can support if opportunity for cross given State Bank Of Bikaner And Jaipur VS Srinathgupta - 1996 7 Supreme 729.- Clerical corrections: Courts fix errors, e.g., changing Section 164 reference to 161 Rakesh Kumar VS State of NCT of Delhi - 2024 Supreme(Del) 197.
Statements recorded under Section 161 can sometimes be treated as dying declarations if they relate to the cause of death and are properly recorded, even after a significant delay, provided the declarant was in a fit mental state PRADEEP BISOI @ RANJIT BISOI VS STATE OF ODISHA - 2019 2 Supreme 422.
Other contexts: In consumer disputes, relevancy questioned without clear ties DIVISIONAL ENGINEER, TELECOM VS SRINARAYAN SINGH; rent control, marked subject to proof Lalchand Brothers rep. by Mahendrakumar Jain VS Purushotham Mundra - 2009 Supreme(Mad) 176; cheating discharge, insufficient prima facie link Mariappan VS State, represented by the Sub-Inspector of Police, District Crime Branch, Virudhunagar District - 2011 Supreme(Mad) 1496.
Recording must be individual, timely. Violations (e.g., constable presence vitiating process) diminish weight Om Prakash @ Jani VS State of U. P. - 2023 Supreme(All) 1622. Courts verify compliance before use Tilkeshwar Singh VS State Of Bihar - 1955 0 Supreme(SC) 114.
In tainted investigations, like unreliable eyewitnesses and suspect recoveries, 161 statements alone falter: Conviction of appellants cannot be sustained as the evidence of eye witnesses is not reliable, investigation was tainted and recoveries made are suspect Lakhwihder Singh VS State Of Punjab - 2003 1 Supreme 789.
Section 161 CrPC statements are investigative cornerstones but courtroom tools with sharp limits. Primarily for contradiction/impeachment, they safeguard trials while preventing abuse. Misuse risks injustice, as seen in reversals of convictions reliant on inadmissible narratives Renuka Prasad VS State Represented by Assistant Superintendent of Police - 2025 5 Supreme 176.
Key Takeaways:- Not substantive evidence State of N. C. T. of Delhi VS Mukesh - 2013 0 Supreme(SC) 1207.- Limited to credibility tests.- Accused statements heavily restricted P. Krishna Mohan Reddy VS State of Andhra Pradesh - 2025 0 Supreme(SC) 865.- Exceptions like dying declarations possible PRADEEP BISOI @ RANJIT BISOI VS STATE OF ODISHA - 2019 2 Supreme 422.
Stay informed, but always seek professional counsel. For case-specific guidance, contact a criminal law expert.
References (select citations):- State of N. C. T. of Delhi VS Mukesh - 2013 0 Supreme(SC) 1207, State Bank Of Bikaner And Jaipur VS Srinathgupta - 1996 7 Supreme 729, P. Krishna Mohan Reddy VS State of Andhra Pradesh - 2025 0 Supreme(SC) 865, PRADEEP BISOI @ RANJIT BISOI VS STATE OF ODISHA - 2019 2 Supreme 422, Tilkeshwar Singh VS State Of Bihar - 1955 0 Supreme(SC) 114, Amar Singh VS Union of India - 2011 4 Supreme 262, Renuka Prasad VS State Represented by Assistant Superintendent of Police - 2025 5 Supreme 176, SHRI VINOD KUMAR P NAIR vs STATE OF KARNATAKA - 2025 Supreme(Online)(Kar) 41358, Om Prakash @ Jani VS State of U. P. - 2023 Supreme(All) 1622, RAM LAKHAN MANDAL VS STATE OF BIHAR - 2004 Supreme(Jhk) 90.
#Section161CrPC, #CriminalLawIndia, #EvidenceAct
The learned Rent Controller dismissed the application by observing that there is no scope to allow the application and that all the documents are marked subject to proof of relavancy and the petitioner has got ample opportunity to question Ex.P.10 and Ex.P.11 through the mouth of P.W.1 through cross
In the impugned order the District Forum has referred to certain medical prescriptions in the name of the father of the complainant but the relavancy thereof is not clear from the impugned order. ... The opposite parties (appellants) filed written statement and contested the case before the District Forum. Their case was that the complaint was not maintainable as the complainant was not the subscriber of the telephone in question and as such is not a consumer.
Based on 161 statement, the ingredients of Section 193 of IPC are not at all made out. The learned Sessions Judge clearly erred in preferring a complaint for perjury in absence of prima facie proof. 161 statement does not bind the petitioner. ... The crucial question that need attention of this court is as to whether a 161 statement of a witness in a criminal prosecution can be subjected to perjury proceedings on the ground that witness on mounting the witness box has not reconciled w....
161 Cr.P.C. ... recorded under Section 161 of Cr.P.C., however, in the Court statement he made such statement which made the basis of conviction. ... We have examined the statement made under Section 161 Cr.P.C and the Court statement made by the witness Dhirsai (PW-1). He is the sole witness. ... 161. ... Over all examination of the Court statement and the statement made under Section 161 Cr.P.C....
the statement under Section 161(3) to the accused. ... Under Section 161 Cr.P.C. the police officer may reduce into writing any statement made to him in the course of examination under that provision and if he does so he shall make separate and true record of the statement of each such person whose statement he records. ... It is only when the investigating officer decides to record the statement of witnesses under Section 161 Cr.P.C. that he becomes....
Accordingly, the judgment dated 22.01.2024 shall stand modified to the limited extent that in paragraph 6 of the same, the reference to the statement of the respondent no.2 shall be read as `her statement recorded under Section 161 of the Cr. P.C'. ... It is stated that the statement of the respondent no.2 was recorded under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (in short, `Cr.P.C.') and not under Section 164 of the Cr. P.C., as has been mentioned in the paragraph 6 of the said judgment. 3....
constable vitiates the process of the entire statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. ... In her statement u/s 161 Cr.P.C. she has made specific allegation, as highlighted by learned trial court, of rape. Statement of victim under Section 161 Cr.P.C. was recorded by the Investigating Officer during re-investigation under Section 173(8) Cr.P.C. ... Statement of victim u/s 161 Cr.P.C., prima facie, is sufficient to alter the charges in exercise of jurisdict....
A statement of an accused under Section 161 of the Cr.P.C. stands on a completely different footing from a police statement of a witness. ... This is because a statement of an accused under Section 161 of the Cr.P.C. stands on a different footing from a police statement of any ordinary witness. ... This is because, there may be situations where a person while giving his statement under Section 161 of the Cr.P.C. may not be an accused, but later array....
Instead (3) The new sections numbered 159, 160 and 161 permitted the accused, after the evidence for the prosecution had been led, to make a statutory statement under sec. 160 (1) and also, if he so desired, to give evidence on his own behalf (sec. 161). ... " The defence claims as of right that sec. 233 must be applied to the whole of the deposition, and it has been argued that the words " all statements " cover not only the prisoner's statutory unsworn statement made in terms of secs. 160 and 161#HL_E....
It was unequivocally held that ‘a statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. is not a substantive piece of evidence. ... PW4 was also found to have resiled from his earlier statement under Section 161 because the sister of PW4 and A1 had filed a suit against them which was being jointly contested by them; a mere surmise to place heavy reliance on the Section 161 statements made by PW4. ... As far as PW1 is concerned looking at the evidence of PW9, it has been found that PW1 had stated a deliberate falsehood be....
I did not tell darogababu that the accused Biswajit did not permit me to inform my mother in law. Keep it mark with red ink subject to exhibition and confirmation by the I.O. Attention of witness drawn to 161 statement, witness stated that such statement is there. I did not tell darogababu that ‘Bisuda’ told me that your husband had taken liquor in the market and told that he would beat you.
14. Copy of 161(3), Cr.P.C. Statement of Srinivasan. 11. Copy of 161(3), Cr.P.C. Statement of Lakshmanan. 8. A perusal and careful analysis of the materials available on record would disclose that admittedly A1 was admitted as an inpatient in the Petitioner’s hospital on 07.03.2002 at 9.00 p.m. and as to the injury he offered his explanation stating that while repairing a Tractor Wheel, he sustained the said injury. A1 was admitted as an in-patient in the hospital run by the Revision Petitioner and on 23.03.2002, he was operated by surgeon and subsequently....
161 statement of the complainant and the witnesses. Besides above I find that the aforesaid complaint was lodged after receipt of the summons of the divorce suit instituted by her husband against the complainant and during the pendency of this application there is a development in the case and the police has recovered almost all her stridhans from her husband and parents-in-law except the jewelleries. (d) No further allegation has been found against the accused/opposite parties from the No reason has been assigned as to why the complaint was made after about four months fro....
The statement recorded under Section 161 of the Cr. P. C can be used for the purposes of contradicting the person who made the statement and not for corroborating him or any other witness. It is settled principle of law that the statement made during the police investigation are not substantive evidence and cannot be treated as such and it can be used for the purpose of contradiction of its manner. This witness never was produced as a witness and on scanning the entire order sheet or the evidence I have not been able to find that this witness is either dead or untraceable o....
Such a statement was found recorded in his 161 Cr.P.C. statement Ex. DB. He denied that he had stated in his statement recorded in the course of investigation that when he came to the place of occurrence several other persons had collected and he came to know from them that Jit Singh @ Parmi had snatched the rifle from the gunman of Jagdev Singh Talwandi and had fired shot at Chamkaur Singh. Though this witness claims that he had stated in the course of investigation that Jit Singh @ Parmi had snatched the rifle from Paramjit Singh, such a statement does not find mention in....
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
