Institute of Legal and Management Studies

The Supreme Court recently clarified that while police officers may be considered reliable witnesses for recoveries of physical evidence, such as weapons or narcotics, based on voluntary disclosures by an accused, this reliability does not extend to their testimony regarding witness statements recorded under Section 161 Cr. P.C.

The bench comprising Justices Sudhanshu Dhulia and K. Vinod Chandran set aside the High Court's decision, which had overturned the accused's acquittal, relying on the investigation officer's statements proving the witness statements recorded under Section 161 Cr. P.C.

In this case, the High Court treated witness statements recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. as having evidentiary value, permitting the prosecution to rely on the investigating officer's testimony to fill gaps in its case. The officer had referred to these statements during interrogation to establish motive, conspiracy, and preparation for the crime, evidence the trial court rejected due to the bar under Section 162 Cr.P.C. However, on appeal, the High Court overturned the trial court's ruling.

The judgment authored by Justice Chandran held that while police testimony may be considered credible for tangible recoveries under Section 27 of the Evidence Act, 1872, it cannot be relied upon to substantiate prosecution witness statements recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C., as such statements lack substantive evidentiary value and may only be used to contradict the witness during trial.

“The statements made by the IOs regarding the motive, conspiracy and preparation comes out as the prosecution story, as discernible from the Section 161 statements of various witnesses who were questioned by the police during investigation; which statements are wholly inadmissible under Section 162 of the Cr.P.C. Merely because the IOs spoke of such statements having been made by the witnesses during investigation, does not give them any credibility, enabling acceptance, unless the witnesses themselves spoke of such motive or acts of commission or omission or instances from which conspiracy could be inferred as also the preparation, established beyond reasonable doubt. We are unable to find either the motive, the conspiracy or the preparation or even the crime itself to have been established in Court, at the trial through the witnesses examined before Court. The witnesses had turned hostile, for reasons best known to themselves. The only inference possible, on the witnesses turning hostile is that either they have been persuaded for reasons unknown or coerced into resiling from the statements made under Section 161 or that they had not made such statements before police officers. Merely because the story came out of the mouth of the IO, it cannot be believed and a legal sanctity given to it, higher than that provided to Section 161 statements under Section 162 of the Cr.P.C.”, the court said.

The Court distinguished the cases relied by the High Court such as State (NCT of Delhi) v. Sunil (2001) and Rizwan Khan v. State of Chhattisgarh (2020) to support its decision, stating that in the said cases the Court had acknowledged that police officers could be reliable witnesses for recoveries of physical evidence like weapons or narcotics, but cannot be trusted to cover statements recorded from witnesses under Section 161 Cr.P.C.

"The only view that comes forth is that the prosecution completely failed to prove the allegations raised and charged against each of the accused, more by reason of all the witnesses paraded before Court, at the trial, having turned hostile for reasons unknown. Whatever be the reason behind such hostility, it cannot result in a conviction, based on the testimony of the Investigating Officers which is founded only on Section 161 statements and voluntary statements of accused; the former violative of Section 162 of the Cr.P.C and the latter in breach of Sections 25 & 26 of the Evidence Act.”, the court observed.

Accordingly, the Court allowed the appeal and set aside the conviction based on the witnesses Section 161 CrPC statements.

Case Title: RENUKA PRASAD VERSUS THE STATE

Citation : 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 559

Click here to read/download the judgment

Appearance:

For Appellant(s) Mr. Ratnakar Dash, Sr. Adv. Mr. G.Sivabalamurugan, AOR Mr. Selvaraj Mahendran, Adv. Mr. C.adhikesavan, Adv. Ms. Ratan Priya Pradhan, Adv. Mr. Harikrishnan P.v, Adv. Mr. C.kavin Ananth, Adv. Mr. Siddharth Luthra, Sr. Adv. Mrs. Vaijayanthi Girish, AOR Mr. Girish Ananthamurthy, Adv. Mr. Ayush Kaushik, Adv. Mr. Sougat Pati, Adv.

For Respondent(s) Mr. Aman Panwar, A.A.G. Mr. V. N. Raghupathy, AOR Mr. Shrey Brahmbhatt, Adv.