Analysis of Section 162 CrPC: Statements to Police Not to be Signed

An Exposition of Section 162 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973: The Rule Against Signing Police Statements and Their Use in Evidence

Introduction

Section 162 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC)[1] stands as a cornerstone of criminal procedure in India, delineating the manner in which statements made to a police officer during the course of an investigation are to be treated. Its provisions, particularly the prohibition against signing such statements and the strict limitations on their evidentiary use, are designed to safeguard the accused against potential coercion and fabrication, thereby ensuring a fair trial. This article undertakes a comprehensive analysis of Section 162 CrPC, examining its legislative intent, judicial interpretations, and its practical implications within the Indian criminal justice system. The analysis draws heavily upon landmark precedents and statutory provisions to elucidate the scope and significance of this crucial procedural safeguard.

Legislative Framework of Section 162 CrPC

Section 162 of the CrPC, titled "Statements to police not to be signed: Use of statements in evidence," fundamentally governs the admissibility and utility of statements recorded by police officers during an investigation. Sub-section (1) of Section 162 CrPC stipulates:

"(1) No statement made by any person to a police officer in the course of an investigation under this Chapter, shall, if reduced to writing, be signed by the person making it; nor shall any such statement or any record thereof, whether in a police diary or otherwise, or any part of such statement or record, be used for any purpose, save as hereinafter provided, at any inquiry or trial in respect of any offence under investigation at the time when such statement was made:"[2]

The proviso to sub-section (1) carves out a specific exception:

"Provided that when any witness is called for the prosecution in such inquiry or trial whose statement has been reduced into writing as aforesaid, any part of his statement, if duly proved, may be used by the accused, and with the permission of the Court, by the prosecution, to contradict such witness in the manner provided by section 145 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (1 of 1872); and when any part of such statement is so used, any part thereof may also be used in the re-examination of such witness, but for the purpose only of explaining any matter referred to in his cross-examination."[2]

Sub-section (2) clarifies that nothing in Section 162 shall be deemed to apply to any statement falling within the provisions of clause (1) of Section 32 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (i.e., dying declarations), or to affect the provisions of Section 27 of that Act (i.e., so much of information received from accused as leads to discovery of fact).

The legislative intent, as consistently affirmed by the judiciary, is primarily to protect the accused. As observed in Tahsildar Singh & Another. v. State Of U.P., statements are often recorded by police in a haphazard manner, sometimes amidst an excited crowd, and are typically summaries. The prohibition against signing indicates that the statement is not intended to be binding on the witness or an assurance of its correctness.[3]

Judicial Interpretation of Section 162 CrPC

The judiciary has extensively interpreted the contours of Section 162 CrPC, clarifying its application and limitations. Key aspects of these interpretations are discussed below.

Prohibition on Signing Statements

The mandate that statements recorded by the police shall not be signed by the maker is absolute. This is to prevent the police from obtaining a signed statement that could later be used to pin down a witness, irrespective of the circumstances under which it was recorded. The Supreme Court in Tahsildar Singh noted that this prohibition indicates that the statement is not intended to be a formal, binding declaration by the witness.[3] The Andhra Pradesh High Court in Rajesh Gutta v. State Of A.P & Anr. reiterated this principle, emphasizing that reliance on a notarized statement forwarded by a witness, instead of a properly recorded unsigned statement under Section 161 CrPC, is not legally acceptable.[4] However, the mere fact that a signature was improperly obtained does not automatically invalidate a witness's testimony if the testimony is otherwise credible and evaluated in the broader context, as suggested in State Of U.P v. M.K Anthony.[5] The Kerala High Court in Neelakantan Vasu…Accused v. State observed that obtaining signatures on statements recorded during an inquest (which fall under Section 162) is a contravention of a statutory safeguard and can seriously impair the value of the witness's evidence, as they may not feel free to depose truthfully at trial.[6]

Bar on Use of Statements: Scope and Purpose

Section 162(1) imposes a general bar on the use of such statements "for any purpose" at any inquiry or trial, except as provided in the section itself. This prohibition is comprehensive. The Supreme Court in V.K. Mishra And Another v. State Of Uttarakhand And Another explicitly stated that the purpose for and the manner in which police statements recorded under Section 161 CrPC can be used at trial are indicated in Section 162 CrPC.[7] The Court emphasized that these statements cannot be used by the prosecution for corroboration or by the defence for purposes other than contradiction. In Rameshwar Singh v. State Of Jammu And Kashmir, the Supreme Court held that the High Court erred in using statements recorded under Section 161 CrPC for corroborating the testimony of eyewitnesses, as Section 162 lays down a limited use for such statements.[8] Similarly, in Sat Paul v. Delhi Administration, the Supreme Court found the High Court's use of police statements of trap witnesses for corroboration to be impermissible under the proviso to Section 162 CrPC.[9] The phrase "for any purpose" was highlighted by the Gujarat High Court in Nathu Manchhu v. The State Of Gujarat, asserting that the user for that purpose must be an actual user in court proceedings.[10]

The Privy Council in Pulukuri Kottaya And Others v. Emperor, while primarily dealing with Section 27 of the Evidence Act, also touched upon Section 162 CrPC, underscoring the general prohibition on the use of police statements.[11] The protection extends to statements made by any person, including an accused person if the statement does not amount to a confession. The Delhi High Court in K.T Advani v. The State, referencing Pakala Narayana Swami v. Emperor, noted that "any person" in Section 162 includes a person who may thereafter be accused.[12]

Statements recorded during an inquest under Section 174 CrPC also fall within the ambit of Section 162 CrPC. The Allahabad High Court in Ghantoo Son Of Delai v. State Of U.P., citing Razik Ram v. Jaswant Singh Chouhan, held that even a statement of a witness recorded by an investigator during an inquest would be within the inhibition of Section 162.[13]

Exception: Contradiction of Prosecution Witnesses

The most significant exception to the general bar is the use of a prior statement made to the police to contradict a prosecution witness, as per the proviso to Section 162(1) CrPC, read with Section 145 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. This right is available to the accused, and, with the permission of the Court, to the prosecution. The Supreme Court in Tahsildar Singh meticulously analyzed this proviso, holding that a statement can be used for contradiction if it is contrary to the testimony of the witness in court.[14] The Court clarified that "to contradict" means to bring out an inconsistency between the witness's current testimony and their previous statement. The procedure under Section 145 of the Evidence Act must be strictly followed, meaning the witness's attention must be drawn to those parts of the written statement by which it is intended to contradict them.[15]

The Supreme Court in Tara Singh v. State also emphasized the necessity of complying with Section 145 of the Evidence Act for using previous statements to contradict witnesses, failing which such statements might be rendered inadmissible for that purpose.[16]

Omissions as Contradictions

A crucial aspect of "contradiction" under Section 162 CrPC is whether an omission in a police statement can amount to a contradiction. The Supreme Court in Tahsildar Singh laid down that an omission is a contradiction only if what is stated in court is irreconcilable with what was omitted in the police statement, or if the omission is of such significance that it makes the version given in court suspect.[14] It must be an omission of a fact which the witness would have been expected to state in the ordinary course. The Karnataka High Court in Muninajappa And Others, Accused- v. State Of Mysore also deliberated on whether an omission amounts to a contradiction, indicating that the process involves establishing that certain facts deposed in court are not found in the earlier statement.[17]

Use by Prosecution and Re-examination

While the primary right to use police statements for contradiction rests with the accused, the prosecution can do so with the permission of the Court. When any part of such a statement is used for contradiction, any part thereof may also be used in the re-examination of such witness, but "for the purpose only of explaining any matter referred to in his cross-examination."[2] This was affirmed in Tahsildar Singh[14] and is evident from the statutory text itself.[18] The Karnataka High Court in Muninajappa dealt with a scenario where the prosecutor sought to explain omissions during re-examination by referring to a further statement made by the witness to the police.[17]

Statements Not Amounting to FIR

It is important to distinguish statements recorded under Section 161 CrPC from a First Information Report (FIR) lodged under Section 154 CrPC. While an FIR is a crucial document, it is not an encyclopaedia of all facts. The Supreme Court in V.K. Mishra observed that an FIR is not expected to contain all details of the prosecution case, and the prosecution version cannot be doubted merely because the FIR does not contain exhaustive details, especially when lodged by someone in shock or grief.[7] A statement recorded after the commencement of investigation falls under Section 161/162 CrPC. The Gujarat High Court in Rabari Khima Ganda v. State considered whether a counter-complaint would be covered by Section 162, opining that a counter-complaint is, after all, a statement.[19]

Analysis of Key Reference Materials

Several landmark judgments have shaped the understanding of Section 162 CrPC.

  • Tahsildar Singh & Another. v. State Of U.P. (1959)[3][14]: This seminal judgment exhaustively dealt with the scope of "contradiction" under Section 162 CrPC, linking it firmly with Section 145 of the Evidence Act. It clarified the legislative intent behind the provision – protecting the accused from the unreliability of hastily recorded police statements while allowing a limited use for impeaching witness credibility. It established that omissions could amount to contradictions under specific circumstances.
  • Pulukuri Kottaya And Others v. Emperor (1947)[11]: The Privy Council, in this case, while focusing on Section 27 of the Evidence Act, implicitly reinforced the general bar on the use of statements made to police under Section 162 CrPC, except for the specified purpose of contradiction. It highlighted the importance of procedural fairness.
  • Sat Paul v. Delhi Administration (1976)[9]: This case underscored that police statements cannot be used for corroborating prosecution witnesses. The Supreme Court found fault with the High Court for using such statements to find support for the testimony of other witnesses, reiterating the restrictive use permitted by the proviso to Section 162 CrPC.
  • V.K. Mishra And Another v. State Of Uttarakhand And Another (2015)[7]: The Supreme Court reiterated the established principles regarding the limited use of statements recorded under Section 161 CrPC. It strongly discouraged attempts to use such statements for purposes other than contradiction, such as scrutinizing them for details not found in the FIR, emphasizing that an FIR is not an exhaustive account.
  • Noor Khan v. State Of Rajasthan (1963)[20]: The Supreme Court discussed the recording of statements under Section 161(3) CrPC and the subsequent application of Section 162 CrPC, emphasizing the bar on signing and the limited use for contradiction by the accused, or by the prosecution with court permission.
  • Rameshwar Singh v. State Of Jammu And Kashmir (1971)[8]: This case provides a clear instance of judicial correction where the High Court erroneously used Section 161 CrPC statements for corroboration, which the Supreme Court declared impermissible under Section 162.

Other cases like Jhumarlal v. The State Opposite Party.[21] (regarding the accused's right to copies of statements for defence), and New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. M.S. Venkatesh Babu[22] (discussing Section 162 in the context of statements made to police in an insurance claim matter, though its primary domain is criminal trials) further illustrate the wide-ranging application and judicial scrutiny of this provision.

Procedural Safeguards and Rationale

Section 162 CrPC embodies critical procedural safeguards aimed at ensuring a fair criminal trial. The rationale behind these safeguards includes:

  1. Protection against Coercion and Verballing: The police, during investigation, might be tempted to record statements in a manner that suits the prosecution's narrative or even fabricate statements. The bar on use and the prohibition on signing are intended to mitigate this risk.
  2. Unreliability of Statements: As noted in Tahsildar Singh, statements are often recorded in less-than-ideal conditions and may not accurately reflect what the witness stated.[3] They are often summaries and can be perfunctory.
  3. Freedom of Witness Testimony in Court: Witnesses should be free to testify truthfully in court, unhampered by prior statements they might have been made to sign or which they fear could be used against them without restriction.[6]
  4. Preventing Undue Prejudice to the Accused: If police statements were freely admissible, they could unduly prejudice the accused, as such statements are not made on oath and are not subject to cross-examination at the time of recording.
  5. Maintaining the Sanctity of Trial Evidence: The primary evidence is that which is adduced before the court, tested by cross-examination. Section 162 helps maintain this focus.

Challenges and Contemporary Relevance

Despite its clear mandate, the application of Section 162 CrPC is not without challenges. Ensuring that investigating officers scrupulously follow the prohibition on signing and accurately record statements remains a practical concern. The interpretation of "omissions" amounting to "contradictions" can be subjective and lead to protracted arguments in trial. Moreover, the advent of electronic evidence and new methods of recording information may pose fresh questions for the application of principles enshrined in Section 162 CrPC.

However, the fundamental principles underlying Section 162 CrPC – the protection of the accused, the need for reliable evidence, and the assurance of a fair trial – remain profoundly relevant. It continues to be a vital tool for the defence to test the veracity of prosecution witnesses and a crucial check on the powers of the investigating agency.

Conclusion

Section 162 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, plays a pivotal role in the Indian criminal justice system by regulating the use of statements made to police officers during investigation. Its dual prohibitions – against the signing of such statements and their general use in evidence, save for the specific purpose of contradiction under Section 145 of the Indian Evidence Act – are fundamental to safeguarding the rights of the accused and ensuring the integrity of the trial process. The judiciary, through a consistent line of pronouncements, has meticulously carved out the operational sphere of this provision, emphasizing its protective intent. While challenges in its application persist, Section 162 CrPC remains an indispensable safeguard against potential police excesses and a guarantor of fairness in criminal adjudication in India.

References