Third Lecture CRPC :Position as to 162 and allied sections which elucidate its scope.
Object of 161 is to obtain evidence which may be later produced at the trial.
A person examined under 161 is bound to answer truly all question other than the nature of questions which are self incriminatory in nature
The protection is afforded both by section 161 (2) Cr.PC and article 20 (3) of the constitution. (statements recorded under section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure cannot be used as substantive evidence either in favour of or against the accused. Such statements can be used only to test credibility of prosecution witnesses. statement recorded in the course of investigation by police cannot be a subject matter of cross-examination unless the person has been examined as prosecution witness before the Court and his statement is brought in evidence for the purpose of contradicting such witness or to point out the omission in his former statement before the police. "Duly proved " as used under section 162 of Cr.PC would mean he has to be examined as prosecution witness inside the court first . Statements recorded under section 161 cannot be used for corroboration or as a substantive evidence.)
Effect of recording a joint statement?
Tilkeshwar Singh And Others vs The State Of Bihar on 8 December, 1955
The I.O. may reduce into writing any statement made to him during course of examination and if he does so he shall make a separate and true account of all statements , for if he only records one joint statement of several witneses that would not render evidence inadmissible, but rather it would greatly affect the weight attached to their evidence.
Statement are to be recorded as far as possible in the words of the accused and it should not be indirect or boiled form of speech , otherwise it will affect the credibility of such statement .
161 (2) is to be read with , 177 ,202 IPC as well but more specifically it will be covered under 179 IPC.
Effect of delay on examination?
There should not be unnecessary delay on part of investigative authorities , otherwise evidence may become suspect but where delay is explained and court accepts the explanation , it won't be of material nature . (Bodhraj v. State of Jammu and Kashmir AIR 2002 SC 3164)
162 (It does not apply to civil or writ proceedings vide khatri v. state of bihar , also it will not apply on maintenance proceedings or proceedings relating to disposal of property)
Effect of obtaining signature?
Although , 162 contains express bar as to signature on statement made to police officer , however if such statement is obtained , it would not vitiate the proceedings.
State of UP V. M.K. Anthony AIR 1985 SC 48
If officer obtains signature of a witness on his recorded statement , the evidence of the witness is not thereby rendered inadmissible . It merely puts court on guard and may necessitate an indepth scrunity.
Evidentiary value ?
Statement recorded under 161 are not substantive evidence , they are not given on oath , neither made during trial nor tested by cross examination.