Section 162 CrPC Does Not Prevent A Trial Court From Putting Questions To Witnesses Suo Motu To Contradict Them : Supreme Court

The Supreme Court observed that Section 162 CrPC does not affect a Court's power to look into documents or put questions to witnesses suo motu to contradict them. "There is in our opinion nothing in Section 162 of the CrPC which prevents a Trial Judge from looking into the papers of the chargesheet suo motu and himself using the statement of a person examined by the police recorded therein for the purpose of contradicting such person when he gives evidence in favour of the State as a prosecution witness.", the bench of Justices B R Gavai, J B Pardiwala and Prashant Kumar Mishra observed.The court noted this while considering an appeal filed by an accused who was convicted and sentenced to death for the offence of rape and murder of a 10-year old girl. The court noted that the case of all the witnesses before the police was that it was some other person (not the present accused) who had come to the house of the victim on the fateful day and date and had taken the victim along with him to his house to watch TV and that he found locking the door. Whereas in deposition before the Trial Court, the witnesses stated that it was the accused-appellant who was last seen with the victim.The court said that neither the defence counsel nor the public prosecutor nor the presiding officer of the Trial Court and nor the High Court thought fit to look into these contradictions. Section 162 CrPC provides that no statement made by any person to a police officer in the course of an investigation, whether it be recorded or not, shall be used for the purpose save as provided in the first proviso to the Section. The first proviso says that when any witness, whose statement has been reduced into writing by the police in accordance with the provisions of the CrPC, is called for the prosecution in inquiry or trial, the accused, with the permission of the court, may contradict the witnesses in the manner provided by Section 145 of the Evidence Act. The question considered by the court was this: As the first part of Section 162 prohibits the use of the statement of a witness to a police officer for any purpose, other than that subsequently provided for in the proviso, and as the proviso says that the Court may permit the accused to contradict the witness with his previous statement, does the Court have power to do anything suo motu. Stressing on the word “purpose” used in the proviso to Section 162, the bench said:"The purpose mentioned in the proviso is the purpose of contradicting the evidence given in favour of the State by a prosecution witness in Court by the use of the previous statement made by such witness to the police officer. The purpose is to discredit the evidence given in favour of the prosecution by a witness for the State. The Section prohibits the use of the statement for any other purpose than this. It does not say that the statement can only be used at the request of the accused. The limitation or restriction imposed in the first part of Section 162 CrPC relates to this purpose for which the statement may be used; it does not relate to the procedure which may be adopted to effect this purpose. The proviso which sets out the limited purpose also mentions the way in which an accused person may contradict the witness with his previous statement made to the Police, but it does not in any way purport to take away the power that lies in the Court to look into any document, that it considers necessary to look into for the ends of justice and to put such questions to a witness as it may consider necessary to elicit the truth. We realise that the proviso would prevent the Court from using statements made by a person to a police officer in the course of investigation for any other purpose than that mentioned in the proviso but it does not in any other way affect the power that lies in the Court to look into documents or put questions to witnesses suo motu. It seems to us to be absurd to suggest that a Judge cannot put a question to a witness which a party may put. In this connection we would refer to the provisions of Section 165 of the Evidence Act, where the necessity of clothing the Judge with very wide powers to put questions to witnesses and to look into documents is recognised and provided for.""There is in our opinion nothing in Section 162 of the CrPC which prevents a Trial Judge from looking into the papers of the chargesheet suo motu and himself using the statement of a person examined by the police recorded therein for the purpose of contradicting such person when he gives evidence in favour of the State as a prosecution witness. The Judge may do this or he may make over the recorded statement to the lawyer for the accused so that he may use it for this purpose. We also wish to emphasise that in many sessions cases when an advocate appointed by the Court appears and particularly when a junior advocate, who has not much experience of the procedure of the Court, has been appointed to conduct the defence of an...

Section 162 CrPC Does Not Prevent A Trial Court From Putting Questions To Witnesses Suo Motu To Contradict Them : Supreme Court

Ashok KM

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

Section 162 CrPC Does Not Prevent A Trial Court From Putting Questions To Witnesses Suo Motu To Contradict Them : Supreme Court

Ashok KM

This is a premium content Available exclusively to Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers