Recording Of Statements Under Section 161 Crpc
1. What is Section 161 CrPC?
Section 161 CrPC deals with the power of police officers to examine witnesses during investigation.
The police officer can examine any person who appears to have knowledge of the facts and circumstances of the case.
The examination is recorded verbally or in writing, but it is not a formal deposition.
The statements recorded under Section 161 are called “161 statements” or “police statements.”
2. Purpose of Section 161 Statements
To collect initial information and facts regarding the offense.
To help police officers in the investigation and forming a case.
To identify the truth, nature, and circumstances of the crime.
To record the immediate version of the witness before any coaching or tampering.
3. Key Features
| Feature | Explanation |
|---|---|
| Voluntariness | Statements should be voluntary, not under duress or coercion. |
| No oath required | Statements under Section 161 are not recorded under oath. |
| No cross-examination | Statements recorded are not subject to cross-examination during investigation. |
| Use in trial | Generally, these statements cannot be used as substantive evidence during trial but may be used for impeachment. |
4. Difference Between Section 161 and Section 164 CrPC
| Aspect | Section 161 CrPC | Section 164 CrPC |
|---|---|---|
| Who records? | Police officer during investigation | Magistrate |
| Under oath? | No | Yes |
| Use in trial | Generally not substantive evidence | Can be substantive evidence |
| Purpose | Investigation | Recording confessions or statements |
🧑⚖️ 5. Important Case Laws on Section 161 CrPC
🔹 Case 1: State of Punjab v. Gurmit Singh (1996)
Court: Supreme Court of India
Issue: Whether statements under Section 161 can be used as substantive evidence in trial.
Held:
The Supreme Court ruled that statements under Section 161 CrPC are not substantive evidence and cannot be used to convict the accused directly. However, they can be used to contradict or impeach a witness if the testimony in court differs from the earlier statement.
Significance:
Clarified the limited role of Section 161 statements in criminal trials.
🔹 Case 2: Ram Swaroop v. State of Uttar Pradesh (1965)
Court: Supreme Court of India
Issue: Whether a statement recorded under Section 161 without caution (i.e., without informing the witness about legal consequences) is admissible.
Held:
The Court held that the absence of caution does not render the statement inadmissible. Statements under Section 161 are recorded during investigation and are not confessions or admissions; thus, no formal caution is mandatory.
Significance:
Distinguished Section 161 statements from confessions under Section 164.
🔹 Case 3: K. Balan v. State of Kerala (1984)
Court: Supreme Court of India
Issue: Whether contradictions between Section 161 statement and trial testimony can be used to discredit the witness.
Held:
The Court held that contradictions in Section 161 statements can be used for impeaching the credibility of the witness but cannot be used as substantive evidence.
Significance:
Supports the use of Section 161 statements as a tool for cross-examination and testing witness reliability.
🔹 Case 4: Jagmohan Singh v. State of U.P. (1973)
Court: Supreme Court of India
Issue: Whether a statement under Section 161 recorded under coercion is admissible.
Held:
The Court held that any statement recorded under coercion, threat, or inducement is inadmissible. Voluntariness is a prerequisite for admissibility.
Significance:
Affirms protection against forced statements during police examination.
🔹 Case 5: State of Rajasthan v. Kashi Ram (2006)
Court: Supreme Court of India
Issue: Use of Section 161 statements in proving criminal conspiracy.
Held:
The Court held that statements under Section 161 can be used to corroborate other evidence and may help prove conspiracy when read together with other material.
Significance:
Shows that while not substantive, Section 161 statements have probative value in context.
🔹 Case 6: State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal (1992)
Court: Supreme Court of India
Issue: Use of Section 161 statements in framing charge and trial.
Held:
Statements under Section 161 can be used to support investigation and framing of charges, but not for conviction alone.
Significance:
Highlights investigative importance of these statements.
6. Practical Aspects
| Aspect | Explanation |
|---|---|
| Recording | Usually recorded by police officer in a question-answer format. |
| Right to Counsel | Witness does not have a right to legal counsel during Section 161 examination. |
| Accuracy | Witness must be careful; contradictions with trial testimony can damage credibility. |
| Use in Trial | Not substantive proof, but useful in cross-examination. |
7. Summary Table of Key Case Law
| Case | Issue | Holding |
|---|---|---|
| Gurmit Singh (1996) | Use as substantive evidence | Not substantive, can impeach witness |
| Ram Swaroop (1965) | Need for caution | No caution needed for Section 161 |
| K. Balan (1984) | Contradictions in statements | Contradictions impeach credibility |
| Jagmohan Singh (1973) | Coerced statements | Coerced statements inadmissible |
| Kashi Ram (2006) | Use in conspiracy cases | Can corroborate evidence |
| Bhajan Lal (1992) | Framing charge | Support framing, not conviction |
✅ 8. Conclusion
Statements recorded under Section 161 CrPC are important for investigation but are not substantive evidence to convict.
They play a vital role in testing witness credibility and corroborating other evidence.
These statements must be voluntary and free from coercion.
Witnesses must be cautious while giving statements to avoid contradictions at trial.
The police must conduct these examinations fairly and lawfully.
RELATED Blog
0 comments