Searching Case Laws & Precedent on Legal Query.....!
Scanned Judgements…!
Checking relevance for PRADEEP BISOI @ RANJIT BISOI VS STATE OF ODISHA...
PRADEEP BISOI @ RANJIT BISOI VS STATE OF ODISHA - 2019 2 Supreme 422 : A statement recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. may be treated as a dying declaration after the death of the maker, even after a long time, if it relates to the cause of death or the circumstances of the transaction resulting in death, provided it falls within the provisions of Section 32(1) of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. Section 162(2) Cr.P.C. explicitly carves out an exception to the general rule that statements under Section 161 are not admissible in evidence, making such statements admissible if they qualify as dying declarations under Section 32(1) of the Evidence Act. Therefore, such a statement has evidentiary value when it pertains to the cause of death and is made by a person who subsequently dies.Checking relevance for State of NCT of Delhi VS Ravi Kant Sharma...
State of NCT of Delhi VS Ravi Kant Sharma - 2007 3 Supreme 305 : Under Section 161(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, a police officer may reduce into writing any statement made to him during examination under Section 161, and if he does so, he must make a separate and true record of the statement of each person whose statement he records. Such a record must be a true and separate account of the witness''''s statement and cannot include the investigating officer''''s interpretation or ''''gists'''' of the statement. The term ''''statement'''' under Section 161(3) refers only to the actual words or content provided by the witness, not summaries, observations, or interpretations made by the investigating officer. Therefore, only statements recorded in accordance with Section 161(3) are valid and must be supplied to the accused under Section 207 Cr.P.C., subject to exceptions under Section 173(6). Gists or summaries of statements, particularly those recorded in the case diary under Section 172 Cr.P.C., are not considered valid statements under Section 161(3) and are not entitled to be supplied to the accused.Checking relevance for MOHAMMED AJMAL MOHAMMAD AMIR KASAB @ ABU MUJAHID VS STATE OF MAHARASHTRA...
MOHAMMED AJMAL MOHAMMAD AMIR KASAB @ ABU MUJAHID VS STATE OF MAHARASHTRA - 2012 6 Supreme 1 : Section 161 of the CrPC provides that any police officer conducting an investigation may examine any person supposed to be acquainted with the facts of the case. Such person is bound to answer truthfully all questions relating to the case, except those the answers to which would tend to expose them to a criminal charge, penalty, or forfeiture. This provision is explicitly recognized as an extension and application of the principle enshrined in Article 20(3) of the Constitution, which protects against self-incrimination. The statement made under Section 161 may be recorded in writing or through audio-video electronic means, and the recording must be separate and true for each person. The exclusion of incriminating answers under Section 161(2) aligns with constitutional safeguards against self-incrimination, and such statements are not admissible if they are compelled or obtained under duress. However, voluntary statements made under Section 161 are not proscribed by Article 20(3), and do not amount to a violation of the privilege against self-incrimination.Checking relevance for SRI BHAGWAN VS STATE OF U. P. ...
SRI BHAGWAN VS STATE OF U. P. - 2012 8 Supreme 501 : A statement recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. can be treated as a dying declaration under Section 32(1) of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, if the person making the statement subsequently dies and the statement relates to the cause of death or circumstances leading to death. Such a statement, though initially recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C., can be relied upon as a dying declaration and carries the same legal weight as a declaration made under Section 32(1) of the Evidence Act, provided it meets the criteria of relevance and reliability. The absence of attestation by two respectable persons as required under Police Regulation 115 does not invalidate the statement, as that provision is a guideline, not a statutory requirement, and applies only when a dying declaration is being recorded directly, not when a Section 161 statement is recorded for immediate medical treatment purposes. The court held that the statement recorded by the investigating officer under Section 161 Cr.P.C. was properly accepted as a dying declaration because it related to the cause of death, was recorded promptly after the incident, and was not contradicted by any evidence.Checking relevance for S. Kaur VS Baldevsingh...
S. Kaur VS Baldevsingh - 1997 0 Supreme(SC) 141 : The validity of a statement recorded under Section 161 CrPC is assessed based on whether an omission to state a fact or circumstance amounts to a contradiction. According to the explanation to Section 162 CrPC, such an omission may constitute a contradiction only if the omitted fact is significant and relevant in the context in which the statement was made. Whether an omission amounts to a contradiction is a question of fact, to be determined by considering the context of the statement. In this case, the omission in PW 4''''s Section 161 CrPC statement was not considered a contradiction because the context of the statement related only to the actual assault and not to witnesses of the incident. The court emphasized that the judgment of the High Court was based on surmises and conjectures, not on evidence, and upheld the credibility of the statements under Section 161 CrPC when corroborated by FIR and testimony in court.
