Searching Case Laws & Precedent on Legal Query..!
Scanned Judgements…!
Searching Case Laws & Precedent on Legal Query..!
Scanned Judgements…!
The courts have clarified that the purpose of Section 162 is to exclude statements made during investigation from substantive evidence, but not to exclude official medical or post-mortem certificates, which are considered independent evidence ["MADHU SHUDHAN DUTTO Vs STATE GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI - Delhi"], ["Basudeo Mandal @ Kalua @ Kalu Mandal VS State of Bihar - Jharkhand"].
Analysis and Conclusion:
In summary:A treatment certificate produced by a doctor after investigation does not fall under the restrictions of Section 162 CrPC and will not be barred from use as evidence solely on that ground.
In criminal trials, medical evidence plays a pivotal role in establishing facts like injuries or cause of death. But what happens when a treatment certificate from a doctor is produced after the police investigation begins? A common query arises: Whether treatment certificate produced by a doctor after investigation will hit S.162 of CrPC? This question is crucial for lawyers, investigators, and accused persons alike, as it touches on the admissibility of such documents in court. Generally, these certificates may be barred as substantive evidence if they qualify as statements to police during investigation, but exceptions exist for limited purposes. This post delves into the legal nuances, backed by judicial precedents. Note: This is general information, not specific legal advice. Consult a qualified lawyer for your case.
Section 162 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC), strictly limits the use of statements made to police during investigation. It states that such statements cannot be used as evidence in court, except for contradiction under Section 145 of the Indian Evidence Act or other narrow exceptions. The rationale is to prevent police influence and ensure fair trials by protecting witnesses from coercion. Avirachan @ Kuttiachan, S/o. Mathai vs State of Kerala, Rep. By The Public Prosecutor, High Court of Kerala, Ernakulam - 2025 0 Supreme(Ker) 2114Neeraj Kumar vs State of U.P. - 2025 0 Supreme(All) 2258
The provision applies broadly: Statements to police not to be signed: Use of statements in evidence... General rule: Statements made to police cannot be used as evidence. Any written narration, report, or certificate addressed to police during investigation falls under this bar. Avirachan @ Kuttiachan, S/o. Mathai vs State of Kerala, Rep. By The Public Prosecutor, High Court of Kerala, Ernakulam - 2025 0 Supreme(Ker) 2114
Treatment certificates issued by doctors post-investigation often narrate medical conditions, treatments, or opinions. If addressed to police—like a letter detailing injuries—they are akin to statements under Section 162 CrPC. The Supreme Court in Kali Ram v. State of H.P. clarified: Such a letter, in our opinion, would constitute statement for the purpose of S.162 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The prohibition relating to the use of a statement made to a police officer during the course of an investigation cannot be set at naught by the police officer not himself recording the statement of a person but having it in the form of a communication addressed by the person concerned to the police officer. Avirachan @ Kuttiachan, S/o. Mathai vs State of Kerala, Rep. By The Public Prosecutor, High Court of Kerala, Ernakulam - 2025 0 Supreme(Ker) 2114
Thus, these certificates are typically inadmissible as substantive evidence to prove facts like injury nature or treatment. Courts have extended this to similar documents, such as cell ID charts or decoded reports sent to police, deeming them hit by Section 162. Avirachan @ Kuttiachan, S/o. Mathai vs State of Kerala, Rep. By The Public Prosecutor, High Court of Kerala, Ernakulam - 2025 0 Supreme(Ker) 211401400051713
In another instance, a complaint lodged during investigation was treated merely as a Section 161 statement, not a valid FIR, due to Section 162's bar. Ramappa VS State of Karnataka - 2017 Supreme(Kar) 1141
While substantive use is prohibited, treatment certificates aren't entirely useless:
For example, in a murder case involving burn injuries, a dying declaration recorded by police in a doctor's presence was admissible despite Section 162 concerns, as the doctor endorsed the deceased's fitness. Yogesh VS State of Karnataka - 2018 Supreme(Kar) 936
Confessions present nuances: While police custody confessions are barred, those in FIRs or favoring the accused (e.g., for mitigation) may escape the ban. Ganesan vs State through The Inspector of Police - 2024 Supreme(Mad) 2479
Electronic records in such certificates require Section 65B Evidence Act certification; otherwise, they're inadmissible alongside Section 162 issues. 01400051713
Courts consistently uphold the bar:
In a sexual assault case, a school register extract was admissible as a public document, but investigation-collected info like Ex.P8 was hit by Section 162. Manikanta @ Puli S/o Shanmugam VS State of Karnataka - 2024 Supreme(Kar) 294
However, not all medical endorsements fail: If obtained independently, outside police communication, they may stand. But trial courts err in relying on unproved police-linked reports. Avirachan @ Kuttiachan, S/o. Mathai vs State of Kerala, Rep. By The Public Prosecutor, High Court of Kerala, Ernakulam - 2025 0 Supreme(Ker) 2114
To use beyond contradiction:- Prove via doctor's testimony as per Evidence Act.- Ensure independence from police investigation.- Obtain outside Section 162 scope with proper certification for electronics.
Failure leads to rejection: Such a letter and the chart attached to it containing the tower location details, in our opinion, would constitute statement for the purpose of S.162 of Cr.P.C, and thus inadmissible in evidence. Avirachan @ Kuttiachan, S/o. Mathai vs State of Kerala, Rep. By The Public Prosecutor, High Court of Kerala, Ernakulam - 2025 0 Supreme(Ker) 211401400051713
Verify compliance to avoid appeals: Lapses in FIR handling or witness statements can prejudice cases. Samir Swain alias Samir Kumar Swain VS State of Orissa - 2002 Supreme(Ori) 439Moti Lal VS State of Rajasthan - 2002 Supreme(Raj) 497
Understanding these rules safeguards trial fairness. For case-specific guidance, seek professional legal counsel.
References:1. Avirachan @ Kuttiachan, S/o. Mathai vs State of Kerala, Rep. By The Public Prosecutor, High Court of Kerala, Ernakulam - 2025 0 Supreme(Ker) 2114: Core on letters/reports as S.162 statements.2. Neeraj Kumar vs State of U.P. - 2025 0 Supreme(All) 2258: Bar on police statements.3. 01400051713: Electronic records in investigations.4. Others integrated as noted.
#Section162CrPC, #CriminalLawIndia, #EvidenceAct
S.162 CrPC. imposes an absolute bar to the use of the statements. The intention behind S.162 CrPC. is to protect the accused from being prejudicially affected by any dishonest or questionable methods adopted by an overzealous police officer. ... As far as section 164 statements are concerned, the proviso to S. 162(1) CrPC has no role to play in eliciting the contradiction because the said proviso will be attracted only in cases wher....
was hit by Section 162 of the Cr.P.C., and the accused cannot make use of it even if it is favourable to him. ... But as regards S.162, CRIMINAL PROCEDURE CODE , it prohibits the use of the statement made by any person (which includes the statement of the accused) for any purpose. ... therefore can be used in favour of the accused; and that the confession during custody would be hit by the said provision and cannot be used for any purpose except as provided under Sect....
P1/complaint which is given on 25.12.2009 at about 8.00 p.m. cannot be treated as a complaint or the first information as it is hit by Section 162 of the Cr.P.C. it can be treated at the most as a statement under Section 161 of the Cr.P.C. recorded by the Investigation Officer during investigation. ... P1 is hit by Section 162 of the Cr.P.C. and it cannot be treated as first information in the case at the most it can be treated as t....
In light of these facts, it could not even remotely be said that whatever is stated in the said interview was a statement before the police and is hit by Section 162 of the Criminal Procedure Code. ... Crpc or not. ... who examined him " Confession recorded by the doctors in the medicolegal certificate " Certificate was exhibited except Portion of extrajudicial confession "when doctor has deposed verbatim such extrajudicial confession, it was held admissible. ... We a....
P20 is hit by Section 162 of Cr.P.C. ... The doctor has also not properly mentioned the mental and physical fitness of the patient to give the statement. She further submitted that the said statement is also hit by Section 162 of Cr.P.C. ... He further submitted that Section 162(1) of Cr.P.C. is not applicable since there is an exception to it under Section 162(2) of Cr.P.C. regarding the dying de....
examined in this case with respect to the cognizable offence, has not been produced in the Court, as such, the First Information Report is hit under Section 162 Cr.P.C. ... Learned counsel appearing for the appellant has further submitted that in view of evidence of Bachan Mahto (P.W.4) and Mahavir Pramanik (P.W.5), the present First Information Report is hit under Section 162 Cr.P.C. ... Madhulika Dasgupta has further submitted that, from perusal of evidence of Bach....
Any statement given by a witness, whether oral or in writing to the police during the course of the investigation is a statement under S.161 Cr.P.C. and hence inadmissible as it is hit by the bar contained in Section 162 Cr.P.C. ... Further, Exts.P4 and P7 certificates are inadmissible in evidence also as they are hit by the bar contained under Section 162 Cr.P.C. ... Here, the treatment certificates, namely, Exts.....
... The provisions of the 1973 Cr.P.C. corresponding to S.162, 173(4) and 207 A(3) of the old Code are S.162, 173(5)(b) and 207(iii). Similarly, the provision in the present Code corresponding to S.537 of the old Code is S.465. ... Going by the evidence of the eye witnesses A2 had hit the deceased on the head with a soda bottle and PW 13 (doctor) has opined that injury No. 1 in Ext. P12 post mortem certificate could be caused if the deceased were to ....
come within the ban of S.162. ... State of Bombay: AIR 1955 SC 104, one of the questions considered was whether the evidence in regard to the test identification parade held at the instance of the police and under their active supervision was hit by S.162 CrPC? ... It is only a part of investigation or it falls in the realm of investigation. Facts which establish the identity of anything or person/accused whose identity is relevant ....
That means Ex.P8 was the information in writing collected by the investigating officer during investigation and therefore Ex.P8 is hit by section 162 of Cr.P.C. and thus it could not have been looked into by the trial court. ... Is Ex.P.8 hit by section 162 of Cr.P.C.? iii. Is conviction of the accused vitiated for not drawing his attention to the age of PW1 when he was examined under section 313 Cr.P.C.? 2. ... The Hon’ble Supreme Court noticed tha....
4. Learned counsel for the accused-respondent opposed the appeal and submitted that trial court was perfectly justified in acquitting the accused. Learned counsel argued that Ram Kishan (P.W.2) and Mangilal (P.W.3) are not reliable witnesses because they made tremendous improvement upon their original version and their statements are full of contradictions. Learned counsel for the accused-respondent referred to statements of prosecution witnesses, which we shall deal with at later stage. It is argued that FIR was prepared after investigation started, therefore, it was hit by provis....
Counter-complaints received even during investigation are not hit by Section 162, Criminal Procedure Code. Therefore, both Exs. P-35 and P-1 will share the privilege of First Information Reports in this case, though in regard to the uses to which they should be put a vital distinction should be borne in mind. They are not different from independent and fresh complaints made by others than the accused persons in the course of investigation of a particular offence.
The fact that the SHO accompanied them to the Hospital is also evident from the written report (Exhibit P-1) showing that he received the same at SMS Hospital at 9.15 pm. The investigation is therefore hit by Section 162 Cr.P.C. and same is vitiated.
In this case, it is lucidly clear that P.W.11 first received the information from the I.I.C. that a person met a homicidal death, which was diarised, and thereafter P.W.11 proceeded for investigation. Thus, a trite position has emerged that on receipt of information about the cognizable offence or an incident giving rise to a cognizable offence or offences and on entering the F.I.R. in the Station House Entry, the Officer-in-charge has to investigate not merely the cognizable offence reported in the F.I.R. but also other connected offences found to have been committed in course of the same t....
Learned counsel placed reliance on State of A.P. vs. Punati Ramulu (1), and Meharaj Singh vs. State of U.P. (2), wherein their Lordships of the Supreme Court indicated that the complaint registered as FIR by the Investigation Officer after reaching the spot could not be treated as FIR. If the FIR is received by the Ilaqa Magistrate late it can give rise to any inference that the FIR was not lodged at the time it is alleged to have been recorded unless satisfactory explanation for delay is offered. It would be a statement made during investigation and hit by section 162 Cr.P.C.#HL_E....
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
