Portion Of S.161 CrPC Statement Used To Contradict Witness Must Be Proved Through Investigating Officer & Marked: Supreme Court

The Supreme Court on Thursday (February 13) set aside the conviction under Section 302 IPC of a man after noting that the trial court failed to follow the proper procedure for contradicting the prosecution witnesses in their cross-examination with their previously recorded Section 161 Cr.P.C. statements.

A bench comprising Justices Abhay S. Oka and Ujjal Bhuyan held that the trial court erred by merely reproducing the contradicted portions of the witness's Section 161 Cr.P.C. statements in brackets without properly proving the prior statement through the investigating officer. Clarifying the correct procedure, the Court emphasized that when a witness is cross-examined using their Section 161 Cr.P.C. statements, the specific portion used for contradiction must first be formally introduced as evidence through the investigating officer before it can be considered.

The Court stressed that the portion of the previous Section 161 statement would be considered for contradiction only when they are proved through the investigation officer 

“We must refer to a peculiar practice followed by the Trial Court. PW-1 and PW-3 were confronted in the cross-examination with their statements recorded under Section 161 of the CrPC. In the depositions, it is mentioned that the attention of the witness was invited to a particular portion of the prior statement. After recording the answer of the witness, the portion of the prior statement used to contradict the witness has been reproduced in brackets. The law is well settled. The portion of the prior statement shown to the witness for contradicting the witness must be proved through the investigating officer. Unless the said portion of the prior statement used for contradiction is duly proved, it cannot be reproduced in the deposition of the witnesses. The correct procedure is that the Trial Judge should mark the portions of the prior statements used for contradicting the witness. The said portions can be put in bracket and marked as AA, BB, etc. The marked portions cannot form a part of the deposition unless the same are proved.”, the court observed.

The impugned judgments are quashed and set aside, and the appellant is acquitted of the offences alleged against him.

Case Title: Vinod Kumar versus State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi)

Citation : 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 203

Click here to read/download the judgment

Appearance:

For Appellant(s) : Mr. Mukesh K. Giri, AOR Mr. Mandaar Mukesh Giri, Adv. Ms. Amaya Giri, Adv.

For Respondent(s) : Ms. Poornima Singh, Adv. Ms. K. Ram Mohan Rao, Adv. Mr. Mukesh Kumar Maroria, AOR